[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip

   The concept has been defunct for years. Find mention of O2 
 consumption 
   in any current research or any current talking points 
 scientific 
   charts.
  
  
  
  I did not say that 02 had been retained. What WAS retained 
 was state of rest twice as 
  deep as sleep, only now as indicated by metastudies, not by one 
 single, decisive measure.
  
  L B S
 
 
 Metastudies of what parameters?



The global physiological measures.

A metastudy is a mathematical workup of existing studies. The statistical 
methods are 
comparatively sophisticated, and in my opinion, comparatively more subject to 
manipulation for that reason.

Before this goes too far into the trees, let me once again identify the forest 
I am 
discussing:

For many years (based primarily on Wallace), TM teachers around the world 
proudly 
pointed to the O2 consumption chart and told audiences collectively numbering 
in the 
milllions that this one, single, incontrovertible measure proved beyond 
reasonable doubt 
that TM provided the deepest level of rest available to humanity—an 
coincidentally, 
unavailable by any other method.

With Kesterson's finding, that claim was shattered. It was not, however, 
immediately 
withdrawn from public use. No bulletin was sent out to teachers in the field. 
(In fact, I'm 
sure there must be old timers out there still using it.) Instead, it was 
retired without 
fanfare. In its place were now claims that subtle measures of blood chemistry 
and other 
global measures showed that TM produced a level of rest twice as deep as 
sleep. So the 
concept was not dropped.

Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle blood 
chemistry 
argument was based on metastudies. The metastudy argument gained its greatest 
currency when a metastudy was produced to show that TM was more effective 
than all 
other meditation techniques.

My point—forgive me for belaboring it, but it's easy to overlook—is that the 
simplest and 
most effective argument for TM had crumpled. It was replaced with something 
that is 
neither simple enough for the average person to undestand nor obvious enough to 
be 
acknowledged as decisive.

Generally speaking, every benefit of TM has been documented for other programs. 
Because TM has more research behind it, it is comparatively easy to make the 
global 
argument, that no other technique produces the overall benefits. This argument 
is suspect 
because of the generally bad reputation of TM research in general, which has 
been 
discussed elsewhere.

The bottom line, from my point of view, is that TM research will never again be 
able to 
establish the primacy of the TM technique among other forms of meditation and 
self-
improvement programs. On a practical level, it doesn't matter whether the 
reasons are 
sociological or scientific, a matter of prejudice or a matter of professional 
evaluation.

The arguments for the superiority of TM are of such a sophisticated level of 
science and 
mathematics that Joe Lunchbucket will never have a clue whether they mean 
anything or 
not. Nor will most of his neighbors who possess MAs and PhDs.

This is not to say that TM research does not generate scientific support or 
funding for TM 
programs, as some who post here are quick to point out. But the view from 
inside the 
movement is deeply skewed, and doesn't acknowledge that TMs competitors are out 
there 
making hay as well.

L B S





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[Vaj]

On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:20 AM, L B Shriver wrote:For many years (based primarily on Wallace), TM teachers around the world proudly  pointed to the O2 consumption chart and told audiences collectively numbering in the  milllions that this one, single, incontrovertible measure proved beyond reasonable doubt  that TM provided the deepest level of rest available to humanity—an coincidentally,  unavailable by any other method.  With Kesterson's finding, that claim was shattered. It was not, however, immediately  withdrawn from public use. No bulletin was sent out to teachers in the field. (In fact, I'm  sure there must be old timers out there still using it.) Instead, it was retired without  fanfare. In its place were now claims that subtle measures of blood chemistry and other  global measures showed that TM produced a level of rest "twice as deep as sleep". So the  concept was not dropped. One that's not being mentioned and was one of the items that "sold" me as a 14-year old was the old chart you used to see that indicated (IIRC) that TM was something like 8 times deeper than sleep! It was the old chart of galvanic skin resistance chart showing this deep dip in the curve for TM. In fact they still seem to be using "galvanic skin resistance" as something they feel is an important indicator:http://www.mum.edu/tm_research/p1.htmlIf I find a picture of this chart, I'll try to post it here. IMO, that was probably the most misleading chart. I seem to remember being told that TM reduced the metabolic rate many times--6, 7 or 8 times--deeper than sleep. And they used this chart to sell it.





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



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle
 blood chemistry argument was based on metastudies.

I dug this up from an old post (March 200) of
mine on  alt.meditation.transcendental; I no
longer recall where I got the Wallace quote, but
I think it may be about the subtle blood
chemistry you're referring to:

Wallace writes of the Kesterton study, referring to the finding 
of many TM studies and also of Kesterton's study of periods of 
spontaneous breath suspension: 

   Recent studies have extended these results and more carefully 
   analyzed the neurophysiological control of respiratory patterns 
   during the TM technique.  These studies show both a decreased 
   sensitivity to increased levels of carbon dioxide added to the 
   air inhaled during meditation and an increased sensitivity to low 
   levels of oxygen.  This suggests an even more refined pattern of 
   physiological functioning, indicating that there are specific 
   alterations in centers within the brain that are involved with 
   monitoring both carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. 

In other words, Wallace's early findings may not have been 
accurate, but more detailed analysis shows even more interesting 
and complex changes than those he initially reported. 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
 I dug this up from an old post (March 200) of
 mine on  alt.meditation.transcendental

Urk.  Not *that* old.  March 2000.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

Response below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle
  blood chemistry argument was based on metastudies.
 
 I dug this up from an old post (March 200) of
 mine on  alt.meditation.transcendental; I no
 longer recall where I got the Wallace quote, but
 I think it may be about the subtle blood
 chemistry you're referring to:
 
 Wallace writes of the Kesterton study, referring to the finding 
 of many TM studies and also of Kesterton's study of periods of 
 spontaneous breath suspension: 
 
Recent studies have extended these results and more carefully 
analyzed the neurophysiological control of respiratory patterns 
during the TM technique.  These studies show both a decreased 
sensitivity to increased levels of carbon dioxide added to the 
air inhaled during meditation and an increased sensitivity to low 
levels of oxygen.  This suggests an even more refined pattern of 
physiological functioning, indicating that there are specific 
alterations in centers within the brain that are involved with 
monitoring both carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. 
 
 In other words, Wallace's early findings may not have been 
 accurate, but more detailed analysis shows even more interesting 
 and complex changes than those he initially reported.



My recollection at this point is somewhat vague, but I think that other 
neurochemicals 
and/or hormonal and/or metabolic markers were involved.

However, regarding your last statement ^ above:

More complex, yes; but  more interesting? To whom?

To the TM enthusiast or the neurophysiologist, perhaps. However, the complexity 
and 
subtlety of these findings substantially mutes their impact on the public mind.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  snip
   Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle
   blood chemistry argument was based on metastudies.
  
  I dug this up from an old post (March 200) of
  mine on  alt.meditation.transcendental; I no
  longer recall where I got the Wallace quote, but
  I think it may be about the subtle blood
  chemistry you're referring to:
  
  Wallace writes of the Kesterton study, referring to the finding 
  of many TM studies and also of Kesterton's study of periods of 
  spontaneous breath suspension: 
  
 Recent studies have extended these results and more carefully 
 analyzed the neurophysiological control of respiratory 
patterns 
 during the TM technique.  These studies show both a decreased 
 sensitivity to increased levels of carbon dioxide added to the 
 air inhaled during meditation and an increased sensitivity to 
low 
 levels of oxygen.  This suggests an even more refined pattern 
of 
 physiological functioning, indicating that there are specific 
 alterations in centers within the brain that are involved with 
 monitoring both carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. 
  
  In other words, Wallace's early findings may not have been 
  accurate, but more detailed analysis shows even more interesting 
  and complex changes than those he initially reported.
 
 
 
 My recollection at this point is somewhat vague, but I think that 
other neurochemicals 
 and/or hormonal and/or metabolic markers were involved.
 
 However, regarding your last statement ^ above:
 
 More complex, yes; but  more interesting? To whom?
 
 To the TM enthusiast or the neurophysiologist, perhaps. However, 
the complexity and 
 subtlety of these findings substantially mutes their impact on the 
public mind.

Oh, absolutely.  I meant interesting scientifically.

To the extent that there are such interesting but
complicated scientific findings, it must drive the
researchers nuts knowing that laypeople aren't going
to be able to make head nor tail of them.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


snip

 To the extent that there are such interesting but
 complicated scientific findings, it must drive the
 researchers nuts knowing that laypeople aren't going
 to be able to make head nor tail of them.



Yeah. I guess we all have a cross to bear.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[anonymousff]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:


 
 My recollection at this point is somewhat vague,

Is this your Scooter Libby defense?








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[TurquoiseB]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
  My recollection at this point is somewhat vague,
 
 Is this your Scooter Libby defense?

LOL, literally.  That really got a chuckle out 
of me.  Thanks.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anonymousff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
 
 
  
  My recollection at this point is somewhat vague,
 
 Is this your Scooter Libby defense?




I got it from Nixon, actually.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 On Nov 1, 2005, at 9:20 AM, L B Shriver wrote:
 
  For many years (based primarily on Wallace), TM teachers around 
the  
  world proudly
  pointed to the O2 consumption chart and told audiences 
collectively  
  numbering in the
  milllions that this one, single, incontrovertible measure 
proved  
  beyond reasonable doubt
  that TM provided the deepest level of rest available to humanity—
an  
  coincidentally,
  unavailable by any other method.
 
  With Kesterson's finding, that claim was shattered. It was not,  
  however, immediately
  withdrawn from public use. No bulletin was sent out to teachers 
in  
  the field. (In fact, I'm
  sure there must be old timers out there still using it.) 
Instead,  
  it was retired without
  fanfare. In its place were now claims that subtle measures of 
blood  
  chemistry and other
  global measures showed that TM produced a level of rest twice 
as  
  deep as sleep. So the
  concept was not dropped.
 
 
 One that's not being mentioned and was one of the items 
that sold  
 me as a 14-year old was the old chart you used to see that 
indicated  
 (IIRC) that TM was something like 8 times deeper than sleep! It 
was  
 the old chart of galvanic skin resistance chart showing this deep 
dip  
 in the curve for TM. In fact they still seem to be 
using galvanic  
 skin resistance as something they feel is an important indicator:
 
 http://www.mum.edu/tm_research/p1.html
 
 If I find a picture of this chart, I'll try to post it here. IMO,  
 that was probably the most misleading chart. I seem to remember 
being  
 told that TM reduced the metabolic rate many times--6, 7 or 8 
times-- 
 deeper than sleep. And they used this chart to sell it.


You've been had (fooled, tricked, worked, hoodwinked, bamboozeled).
The whole point of TM was hidden from you. The point of it was not 
to give you deeper sleep, but to WAKE YOU UP.
What a con.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 snip
  Looking back, at this point I do not remember whether the subtle
  blood chemistry argument was based on metastudies.
 
 I dug this up from an old post (March 200) of
 mine on  alt.meditation.transcendental; I no
 longer recall where I got the Wallace quote, but
 I think it may be about the subtle blood
 chemistry you're referring to:
 
 Wallace writes of the Kesterton study, referring to the finding 
 of many TM studies and also of Kesterton's study of periods of 
 spontaneous breath suspension: 
 
Recent studies have extended these results and more carefully 
analyzed the neurophysiological control of respiratory patterns 
during the TM technique.  These studies show both a decreased 
sensitivity to increased levels of carbon dioxide added to the 
air inhaled during meditation and an increased sensitivity to 
low 
levels of oxygen.  This suggests an even more refined pattern of 
physiological functioning, indicating that there are specific 
alterations in centers within the brain that are involved with 
monitoring both carbon dioxide and oxygen levels. 
 
 In other words, Wallace's early findings may not have been 
 accurate, but more detailed analysis shows even more interesting 
 and complex changes than those he initially reported.


It may be true, and it also may be taken as a way of trying to spin 
the truth. My own take: the TMO researchers will say almost anything 
in non-scientific journals, but they're more careful in what they say 
when they formally publish. They are even more careful in what they 
ask non-TM resarchers to help them investigate.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
 
 
 Why yes, and acknowledged by everyone these days: no control group.




The experimental design had the subjects serve as their own controls; that was 
the point 
about measuring metabolism before TM and during TM. The problem was that they 
didn't 
measure the difference between [sitting/eyes open] and [sitting/eyes closed] 
before 
measuring TM. That's how they failed to note that [sitting/eyes closed] lowered 
the oxygen 
consumption as much as did TM. Another way of putting it might be: Measurements 
indicate the possibility that reduction of oxygen consumption during TM may be 
due to 
closing the eyes, as opposed to commencing the mantra.


L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, according 
 to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the physiology 
 of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was 
 that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. That 
 was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally acknowledges 
 that the early studies were flawed in that regard.
 
 O2 is no longer seen as a measure of rest during TM.



To the best of my knowledge, Kesterson was the first (at least within the 
movement) to 
point out the design flaw. You are correct about the nature of his research; 
however, 
during the course of his research he pointed out the flaw under consideration 
here.

The nature of the smoothing over had to do with finding a justification for 
maintaining 
the twice as deep as sleep epithet. As I mentioned above, this concept has 
been retained, 
but on the basis of metastudies, not on the basis of a single measure as 
previously. 

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
 research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
 according to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 **
 
 Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of breath 
 (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just a 
 measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
 significantly lower in TM.

@@@

Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably lower than if you 
were just 
sitting with eyes closed.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[Vaj]

On Oct 30, 2005, at 9:04 PM, L B Shriver wrote:Response below.  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "markmeredith2002" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED]   My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings provide  some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute measures of validity.   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.  **  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the reduction of oxygen  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it went something like this:  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their measurements taken while  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely to TM.  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes closed reduced oxygen  consumption by the same amount as TM. Based on recent studies I have read on forms of deep meditation by Benson, sleep drops O2 consumption by about 15%. Simple meditation dropped O2 consumption about 17%, so there is a slight reduction with TM-style mediation. Deep meditation, where one is taking awareness into the central channel, drops O2 consumption by a whopping 64%.I was also recently reading one of Swami Veda's students could drop there metabolic rate to one breath a minute--so low that they could have surgery with just a local anesthetic. 





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



  Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



  

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
according 
 to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep 
sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the 
physiology 
 of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was 
 that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. 
That 
 was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally 
acknowledges 
 that the early studies were flawed in that regard.

This once again speaks to the attempt at integrity despite intense 
bigotry on the part of TM researchers. 

Bigotry is ugliness.
OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 

snip

  …now TM was equivalent to 
   sitting quietly with eyes closed.

snip

 Than what? Keith Wallace sez that prone resting shows the lowest O2 
 consumption. You're behind the times...



Haven't you read The Electic Koolaid Acid Test? We're all behind the times. The 
closest 
anyone gets is 1/30 of a second.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and 
 proceedings 
provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
 absolute 
measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first 
 PhD in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological 
 problem.
 
 **
 
 The methodological problem had to do with the assumption 
that 
 the 
reduction of oxygen 
 consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember 
correctly, 
 it 
went something like this:
 
 Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to 
 their 
measurements taken while 
 meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
 entirely 
to TM.
 
 Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with 
 eyes 
closed reduced oxygen 
 consumption by the same amount as TM.
 
 It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 
 consumption 
twice as low as the 
 deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
 profundity; 
now TM was equivalent to 
 sitting quietly with eyes closed.


Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? 
 Hardly 
a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the 
bigot's 
 bow.

OffWorld
   
   
   
   If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish 
to 
 consider that it was 
   included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
   
   L B S
  
  
  
  
  By the way, I discussed Kesterson's research with Keith, and he 
 confirmed to me that 
  Kesterson's findings were correct.
  
  L B S
 
 
 ANd Keith has written about how things have changed since he first 
 started doing researchon TM 35 years ago.

And he did so LONG before Stephen Hawkings stated last year that his 
theory from the 1960's on black holes may be incorrect, and may not 
exist after all. This is a MUCH bigger flaw, and his whole career 
was built on it. He is still treated like God by physicists and 
laymen alike.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and 
  proceedings 
provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
  absolute 
measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first 
 PhD 
  in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological 
 problem.
 
 **
 
 The methodological problem had to do with the assumption 
that 
  the 
reduction of oxygen 
 consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember 
correctly, 
  it 
went something like this:
 
 Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to 
 their 
measurements taken while 
 meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
  entirely 
to TM.
 
 Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with 
 eyes 
closed reduced oxygen 
 consumption by the same amount as TM.
 
 It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 
 consumption 
twice as low as the 
 deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
  profundity; 
now TM was equivalent to 
 sitting quietly with eyes closed.


Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? 
  Hardly 
a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the 
bigot's 
  bow.

OffWorld
   
   
   
   If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish 
to 
  consider that it was 
   included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
   
   L B S.
  
  I am really only interested in research published in peer-
reviewed 
  journals, though I am sure the research you cite is good, it has 
no 
  meaning to the world as it stands, and even if it were published 
it 
  has been somewhat swamped and washed away by the hundreds of 
other 
  studies showing more important results and the 20 million + 
dollars 
  in hard won grant money given by the NIH.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 Which have nothing to do with O2 consumption, since Kesterson 
 published his research...

Maybe because nobody really cares about O2 consumption, but they do 
care about hypertension and heart disease strategies, and 
behavioural modifications in felons.

OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
 research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
 according to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep 
sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 **
 
 Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
breath 
 (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just a 
 measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
 significantly lower in TM.

This is true, it is so static sometimes and long lasting that is 
seems impossible that I am not breathing.

OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Response below.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   My experience is that refereed journals and 
proceedings 
  provide 
  some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
absolute 
  measures
 of validity. 

Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD 
in
physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
  research.  
I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
   
   **
   
   The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
  reduction of oxygen 
   consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, 
it 
  went something like this:
   
   Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
  measurements taken while 
   meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
  to TM.
   
   Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
  closed reduced oxygen 
   consumption by the same amount as TM.
   
   It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
  twice as low as the 
   deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
profundity; 
  now TM was equivalent to 
   sitting quietly with eyes closed.
   
   The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
  according to global 
   measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep 
sleep. 
  The claim was the 
   same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
  measurement. Now it was 
   teased out of the statistics.
   
   The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
   
   L B S
  
  
  **
  
  Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
breath 
  (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just 
a 
  measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
  significantly lower in TM.
 
 @@@
 
 Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably lower 
than if you were just 
 sitting with eyes closed.
 
 L B S


I have never in my life had anything like the experience of breath 
suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes closed. 
The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if someone 
measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they will 
wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can sustain 
it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable and 
I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser form.

OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
according 
 to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep 
sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the 
physiology 
 of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was 
 that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. 
That 
 was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally 
acknowledges 
 that the early studies were flawed in that regard.

What I mean't to say was this once again speaks to the attempt at 
integrity on the part of TM researchers despite intense
bigotry from others.

Bigotry is ugliness.
OffWorld






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:


snip

   Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
 breath 
   (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just 
 a 
   measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
   significantly lower in TM.
  
  @@@
  
  Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably lower 
 than if you were just 
  sitting with eyes closed.
  
  L B S
 
 
 I have never in my life had anything like the experience of breath 
 suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes closed. 
 The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if someone 
 measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they will 
 wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can sustain 
 it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable and 
 I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser form.
 
 OffWorld



You may be correct in this. My response to Bobananda was a sweeping 
overgeneralization 
in that I was only referring to the average readings.

Breath suspension may be unique to meditation. I can't speak to this 
definitively because I 
don't know if there is research on the possibility or extent of breath 
suspension among 
those who just sit quietly with eyes closed.

L B S







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 
 
 snip
 
Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
  breath 
(which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a 
just 
  a 
measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen 
consumption is 
significantly lower in TM.
   
   @@@
   
   Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably 
lower 
  than if you were just 
   sitting with eyes closed.
   
   L B S
  
  
  I have never in my life had anything like the experience of 
breath 
  suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes 
closed. 
  The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if 
someone 
  measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they 
will 
  wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can 
sustain 
  it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable 
and 
  I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser 
form.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 
 You may be correct in this. My response to Bobananda was a 
sweeping overgeneralization 
 in that I was only referring to the average readings.
 
 Breath suspension may be unique to meditation. I can't speak to 
this definitively because I 
 don't know if there is research on the possibility or extent of 
breath suspension among 
 those who just sit quietly with eyes closed.
 
 L B S
 

True. Point taken. Well said.
I have done one study. Unpublished as yet. For my whole life growing 
up as a child and an adult I have never experienced breath 
suspension whilst sitting or lying with my eyes closed. 
However in the last few years only (not when I first learned TM, or 
for many years after) I have experienced my breathing stopping for 
prolonged periods without any recovery necessary. I sometimes think 
I must be about to die. But then breathing starts again gently.

This is my one case study of sitting with eyes closed, compared to 
TM lractice or transcending associated with TM.

Anyone else had this?

OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[...]
  ANd Keith has written about how things have changed since he first 
  started doing researchon TM 35 years ago.
 
 And he did so LONG before Stephen Hawkings stated last year that his 
 theory from the 1960's on black holes may be incorrect, and may not 
 exist after all. This is a MUCH bigger flaw, and his whole career 
 was built on it. He is still treated like God by physicists and 
 laymen alike.



??? When did Hawkings say that black holes may not exist?

He paid off a bet about a specific implication about black holes that 
he now says is wrong. Just about everyone in physics and astronomy is 
convinced that black holes exist.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[...]
  Which have nothing to do with O2 consumption, since Kesterson 
  published his research...
 
 Maybe because nobody really cares about O2 consumption, but they do 
 care about hypertension and heart disease strategies, and 
 behavioural modifications in felons.
 

Sure, but those things are not based on O2 consumption.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 

[...]
 I have never in my life had anything like the experience of breath 
 suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes closed. 
 The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if someone 
 measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they will 
 wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can sustain 
 it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable and 
 I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser form.
 

At least in TM, breath suspension is not associated with O2 
consumption. There are Buddhist techniques that can drastically lower 
O2 consumption, but I don't know if that is correlated with samadhi 
directly or not.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 
 
 snip
 
Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
  breath 
(which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a 
just 
  a 
measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption 
is 
significantly lower in TM.
   
   @@@
   
   Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably 
lower 
  than if you were just 
   sitting with eyes closed.
   
   L B S
  
  
  I have never in my life had anything like the experience of 
breath 
  suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes 
closed. 
  The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if 
someone 
  measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they 
will 
  wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can 
sustain 
  it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable 
and 
  I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser 
form.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 
 You may be correct in this. My response to Bobananda was a sweeping 
overgeneralization 
 in that I was only referring to the average readings.
 
 Breath suspension may be unique to meditation. I can't speak to 
this definitively because I 
 don't know if there is research on the possibility or extent of 
breath suspension among 
 those who just sit quietly with eyes closed.
 

It can happen with people just sitting quietly, but not for very 
long. Amongst people meditating, it isn't noticed unless it lasts for 
more than a few seconds. ONe assumes that that is the case for non-
meditators also.

BTW, the researchers were not looking for people reporting breath 
suspension and no-one said to them oh, I stopped breathing. They 
were asking for subjects who were having clear experiences of 
transcending and the breath suspension state was the most obvious 
thing correlated with reports of transcending.

I'm also wondering at people on FFL who are reporting breath 
suspension during TM since one of the things that the researchers 
noticed was that the EEG, breathing, etc., returned to normal for 
several seconds before pressing the button to signal that they noted 
transcending.

IOW, they didn't notice samadhi until they were no longer in samadhi.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[...]
 The nature of the smoothing over had to do with finding a 
justification for maintaining 
 the twice as deep as sleep epithet. As I mentioned above, this 
concept has been retained, 
 but on the basis of metastudies, not on the basis of a single measure 
as previously. 
 
 L B S


The concept has been defunct for years. Find mention of O2 consumption 
in any current research or any current talking points scientific 
charts.





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[bbrigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
 
 
 snip
 
Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of 
  breath 
(which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a 
just 
  a 
measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen 
consumption is 
significantly lower in TM.
   
   @@@
   
   Exactly, Bobananda. However, it would be indistinguishably 
lower 
  than if you were just 
   sitting with eyes closed.
   
   L B S
  
  
  I have never in my life had anything like the experience of 
breath 
  suspension that I get from TM, by just sitting with my eyes 
closed. 
  The two are ENTIRELY different states of physiology, and if 
someone 
  measures me when I am in that state of breath suspension they 
will 
  wonder how my body is maintianed. There are yogi's who can 
sustain 
  it for days, with VERY low oxygen consumption. Mine is unstable 
and 
  I cannot cause it at will, but it is the same thing in lesser 
form.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 
 You may be correct in this. My response to Bobananda was a 
sweeping overgeneralization 
 in that I was only referring to the average readings.
 
 Breath suspension may be unique to meditation. I can't speak to 
this definitively because I 
 don't know if there is research on the possibility or extent of 
breath suspension among 
 those who just sit quietly with eyes closed.
 
 L B S
 


Congratulations and thanks to Professor Gordon C S Smith,  Jill P 
Pell, of Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Cambridge 
University,  Department of Public Health, Greater Glasgow NHS Board 
respectively for conducting a systematic review of randomised 
controlled trials to determine whether parachutes are effective in 
preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge. 

They were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of 
parachutes and concluded that, like many interventions used in 
medicine, parachutes had not been as rigorously evaluated as 
required by evidence-based medicine.   

Advocates of evidence-based medicine have criticised the adoption of 
interventions evaluated by using only observational data. The 
authors suggest that everyone might benefit if the most radical 
protagonists of evidence-based medicine organised and participated 
in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial 
of the parachute. This would presumably require them all to jump, 
more than once, from an aeroplane with a harness on their backs not 
knowing if it contained a real parachute or a dummy one.  (For the 
original paper see www.bvmjjournal.com http://www.bvmjjournal.com 
and search on parachute).  









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [...]
   ANd Keith has written about how things have changed since he 
first 
   started doing researchon TM 35 years ago.
  
  And he did so LONG before Stephen Hawkings stated last year that 
his 
  theory from the 1960's on black holes may be incorrect, and may 
not 
  exist after all. This is a MUCH bigger flaw, and his whole 
career 
  was built on it. He is still treated like God by physicists and 
  laymen alike.
 
 
 
 ??? When did Hawkings say that black holes may not exist?
 
 He paid off a bet about a specific implication about black holes 
that 
 he now says is wrong. Just about everyone in physics and astronomy 
is 
 convinced that black holes exist.



About a year ago:

After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys 
everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was 
wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information 
within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a 
conference in Ireland next week.
The about-turn might cost Hawking, a physicist at the University of 
Cambridge, an encyclopaedia because of a bet he made in 1997. More 
importantly, it might solve one of the long-standing puzzles in 
modern physics, known as the black hole information paradox.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151

The Hawking U-turn won John Preskill a book on baseball
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [...]
   Which have nothing to do with O2 consumption, since Kesterson 
   published his research...
  
  Maybe because nobody really cares about O2 consumption, but they 
do 
  care about hypertension and heart disease strategies, and 
  behavioural modifications in felons.
  
 
 Sure, but those things are not based on O2 consumption.


The why don't you STFU about stupid O2...(please:-), nobody cares 
about it. It is unimportant. There are more importatn things







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [...]
   The nature of the smoothing over had to do with finding a 
  justification for maintaining 
   the twice as deep as sleep epithet. As I mentioned above, 
this 
  concept has been retained, 
   but on the basis of metastudies, not on the basis of a single 
measure 
  as previously. 
   
   L B S
  
  
  The concept has been defunct for years. Find mention of O2 
consumption 
  in any current research or any current talking points 
scientific 
  charts.
 
 
 
 I did not say that 02 had been retained. What WAS retained 
was state of rest twice as 
 deep as sleep, only now as indicated by metastudies, not by one 
single, decisive measure.
 
 L B S


Metastudies of what parameters?






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [...]
ANd Keith has written about how things have changed since he 
 first 
started doing researchon TM 35 years ago.
   
   And he did so LONG before Stephen Hawkings stated last year 
that 
 his 
   theory from the 1960's on black holes may be incorrect, and may 
 not 
   exist after all. This is a MUCH bigger flaw, and his whole 
 career 
   was built on it. He is still treated like God by physicists and 
   laymen alike.
  
  
  
  ??? When did Hawkings say that black holes may not exist?
  
  He paid off a bet about a specific implication about black holes 
 that 
  he now says is wrong. Just about everyone in physics and 
astronomy 
 is 
  convinced that black holes exist.
 
 
 
 About a year ago:
 
 After nearly 30 years of arguing that a black hole destroys 
 everything that falls into it, Stephen Hawking is saying he was 
 wrong. It seems that black holes may after all allow information 
 within them to escape. Hawking will present his latest finding at a 
 conference in Ireland next week.
 The about-turn might cost Hawking, a physicist at the University of 
 Cambridge, an encyclopaedia because of a bet he made in 1997. More 
 importantly, it might solve one of the long-standing puzzles in 
 modern physics, known as the black hole information paradox.
 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6151
 
 The Hawking U-turn won John Preskill a book on baseball
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3913145.stm


Just as I said. Hawking didn't say that black holes don't exist. He 
said he was wrong about them being perfect information-sinks.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[authfriend]

Terrific post, akasha.  Maybe it should be included
in FFL's files section along with whatever else (if
anything) is there on TM research.

I'd just note that the deficiencies in the peer 
review process described in your post could just as
well result in the *undervaluing* of TM's research
as it could in unwarranted approval (at least in the
abstract).

There may be some substance to off_world's charge of
bigotry, although of course the existence of bigotry
doesn't in and of itself lend validity to the TM
studies.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

 Well, if you are not qualfied to judge, thats one thing. I would 
think
 that would make you unqualified to judge others qualifications.

Your posts emit huge ego and self agrandisement.
You are saying that peer-review is good but only if you decide if and 
when it is so.
Sorry but the scientists who reviewed those 10+ studies for 
publication will take issue with your unqualified criticisms of their 
work. 

However, whenever a scientist has insisted on his/her more, so 
called 'rigorous', approach to analysing the data, then the results 
came out EVEN STRONGER than the TM scientists had claimed. The TM 
scientists are MORE conservative about it than the average scientist 
uses for their own research.
The studies on the ME are more robust (p value) than almost any other 
studies in the social sciences and even more robust than many studies 
in the physical sciences.

Deal with this. I suggest you take all these studies, find the 
strictest criteria you can come up with, subject all the studies to 
such criteria, then get the results published in a peer-reviewed 
respected journal. If anyone does this analysis, they will find the 
results robust and lasting. Your protestation of this amounts to 
prejudice and supertition until you have published a statistical model 
yourself.

Until then you are pissing in the wind because no-one takes your 
qualifications as seriously as you do. They do however take, as having 
merit, the qualifications of the 3 to 5 scientists that reviewed the 
studies. Though of course all things can be questioned, but after 10+ 
studies under such conditions, as a rational person you have show some 
respector go get published on the topic yourselfor deferas 
I have asked you to do.

Never before has peer-reviewed published research in respected 
journals been subjected to such bigotry and irrationality as a few 
scientists have attempted and some educated laypeople are 
perpetuating. Do you concur?

OffWorld







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Terrific post, akasha.  Maybe it should be included
 in FFL's files section along with whatever else (if
 anything) is there on TM research.
 
 I'd just note that the deficiencies in the peer 
 review process described in your post could just as
 well result in the *undervaluing* of TM's research
 as it could in unwarranted approval (at least in the
 abstract).


They are often undervalued by the TM researchers THEMSELVES !
 Whenever the studies have been subjected to stricter parameters 
imposed on them by someone complaining , then the results come out 
EVEN stronger. 


 
 There may be some substance to off_world's charge of
 bigotry, although of course the existence of bigotry

It is entirely substantive, and the bigotry will eventually come out 
in history books as a record of how such prejucidce can occur in this 
so-called objective scientific era

 doesn't in and of itself lend validity to the TM
 studies.

Of course. 
It is only the bigotry that I take issue with. As long as it exists 
and there is no proof of wrong-doing and 10+ studies show positive 
results, then I will rail against bigotry.

Another form of bigotry is that I do not even MENTION the other 30 or 
so PEER-REVIEWED studies, reviewed by experts in the field, that are 
not published in independent journals. To assume that the researchers 
(TM researchers) must be allowing the publication of the results and 
ignoring major flaws in order to publish them immorally (in Collected 
Papers) is a form of bigotry in itself. Yet I will accept that these 
cannot be entered into the equation at this time. 
I suspect that in 20 years these other papers will hold more 
respectability and sway as proper results in the main (though not 
without some flaws of course).

OffWorld









 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
 The fact that these peer reviewed studies have generated few cites,
 and no new research outside of TMO researchers (from what I can see)
 and no funding outside of the TMO, speaks to the quality of the
 research and the peer prestige of the researchers. The studies and
 researchers generally not highly respected leaders in thier fields, 
 are not associated with institutions known for strong independent
 research, and the research does not appear to be well acknowledged as
 advancing the field.
 

Well, that's a catch-22 in the case of the ME research. I'm not 
contradicting the general utility of your analysis, but only pointing 
out that ME research is, by its nature, an exception to the rule. 
However, it's all moot since scientific fields themselves must publish 
or perish, and the TMO hasn't sponsored new research on the ME in many 
years.







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 [...]
  The fact that these peer reviewed studies have generated few 
cites,
  and no new research outside of TMO researchers (from what I can 
see)
  and no funding outside of the TMO, speaks to the quality of the
  research and the peer prestige of the researchers. The studies 
and
  researchers generally not highly respected leaders in thier 
fields, 
  are not associated with institutions known for strong independent
  research, and the research does not appear to be well 
acknowledged as
  advancing the field.
  
 
 Well, that's a catch-22 in the case of the ME research. I'm not 
 contradicting the general utility of your analysis, but only 
pointing 
 out that ME research is, by its nature, an exception to the rule. 
 However, it's all moot since scientific fields themselves must 
publish 
 or perish, and the TMO hasn't sponsored new research on the ME in 
many 
 years.

Yes they have, but they have not been published yet, and to my mind 
are too far out. Eg: effects of ME on President Bush's pretzel 
intake successes and failures, stuff like that.

OffWorld







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[markmeredith2002]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings provide 
  some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute measures
 of validity. 

Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem. 






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

Response below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings provide 
   some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute measures
  of validity. 
 
 Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
 physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
 I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.

**

The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the reduction of 
oxygen 
consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it went something 
like this:

Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their measurements 
taken while 
meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely to TM.

Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes closed reduced 
oxygen 
consumption by the same amount as TM.

It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption twice as low as 
the 
deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; now TM was 
equivalent to 
sitting quietly with eyes closed.

The next development was metastudies which showed that, according to global 
measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. The claim 
was the 
same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable measurement. Now it 
was 
teased out of the statistics.

The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.

L B S


 








 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
 research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
 
 
 Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? Hardly 
 a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's bow.
 
 OffWorld



If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish to consider that 
it was 
included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[L B Shriver]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Response below.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
  provide 
  some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
  measures
 of validity. 

Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
  research.  
I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
   
   **
   
   The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
  reduction of oxygen 
   consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
  went something like this:
   
   Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
  measurements taken while 
   meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
  to TM.
   
   Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
  closed reduced oxygen 
   consumption by the same amount as TM.
   
   It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
  twice as low as the 
   deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
  now TM was equivalent to 
   sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  
  Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? Hardly 
  a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's bow.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 
 If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish to consider that 
 it was 
 included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
 
 L B S




By the way, I discussed Kesterson's research with Keith, and he confirmed to me 
that 
Kesterson's findings were correct.

L B S






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
 
 **
 
 The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
reduction of oxygen 
 consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
went something like this:
 
 Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
measurements taken while 
 meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
to TM.
 
 Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
closed reduced oxygen 
 consumption by the same amount as TM.
 
 It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
twice as low as the 
 deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
now TM was equivalent to 
 sitting quietly with eyes closed.


Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? Hardly 
a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's bow.

OffWorld





 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings provide 
   some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
measures
  of validity. 
 
 Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
 physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
 I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.


Why yes, and acknowledged by everyone these days: no control group.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[off_world_beings]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   Response below.
   
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
[EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   My experience is that refereed journals and 
proceedings 
  provide 
  some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
absolute 
  measures
 of validity. 

Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD 
in
physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
  research.  
I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
   
   **
   
   The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
  reduction of oxygen 
   consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, 
it 
  went something like this:
   
   Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
  measurements taken while 
   meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
  to TM.
   
   Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
  closed reduced oxygen 
   consumption by the same amount as TM.
   
   It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
  twice as low as the 
   deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
profundity; 
  now TM was equivalent to 
   sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  
  Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? 
Hardly 
  a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's 
bow.
  
  OffWorld
 
 
 
 If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish to 
consider that it was 
 included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
 
 L B S.

I am really only interested in research published in peer-reviewed 
journals, though I am sure the research you cite is good, it has no 
meaning to the world as it stands, and even if it were published it 
has been somewhat swamped and washed away by the hundreds of other 
studies showing more important results and the 20 million + dollars 
in hard won grant money given by the NIH.

OffWorld






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
 
 **
 
 The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
reduction of oxygen 
 consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
went something like this:
 
 Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
measurements taken while 
 meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
to TM.
 
 Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
closed reduced oxygen 
 consumption by the same amount as TM.
 
 It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
twice as low as the 
 deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
now TM was equivalent to 
 sitting quietly with eyes closed.
 
 The next development was metastudies which showed that, according 
to global 
 measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. 
The claim was the 
 same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
measurement. Now it was 
 teased out of the statistics.
 
 The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
 
 L B S


Except that Kesterson's finding was based on examining the physiology 
of people inthe breath suspension state because the assumption was 
that O2 consumption was driving the reduction in O2. It wasn't. That 
was NOT smoothed over, and Keith Wallace's book formally acknowledges 
that the early studies were flawed in that regard.

O2 is no longer seen as a measure of rest during TM.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly (PS)

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
Response below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
My experience is that refereed journals and 
proceedings 
   provide 
   some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
absolute 
   measures
  of validity. 
 
 Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first 
PhD in
 physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
   research.  
 I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological 
problem.

**

The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
the 
   reduction of oxygen 
consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, 
it 
   went something like this:

Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to 
their 
   measurements taken while 
meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
   to TM.

Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with 
eyes 
   closed reduced oxygen 
consumption by the same amount as TM.

It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 
consumption 
   twice as low as the 
deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
profundity; 
   now TM was equivalent to 
sitting quietly with eyes closed.
   
   
   Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? 
Hardly 
   a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's 
bow.
   
   OffWorld
  
  
  
  If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish to 
consider that it was 
  included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
  
  L B S
 
 
 
 
 By the way, I discussed Kesterson's research with Keith, and he 
confirmed to me that 
 Kesterson's findings were correct.
 
 L B S


ANd Keith has written about how things have changed since he first 
started doing researchon TM 35 years ago.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
Response below.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
   [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
   wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
My experience is that refereed journals and 
 proceedings 
   provide 
   some degree of feedback and critique, but are not 
 absolute 
   measures
  of validity. 
 
 Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first 
PhD 
 in
 physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
   research.  
 I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological 
problem.

**

The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that 
 the 
   reduction of oxygen 
consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, 
 it 
   went something like this:

Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to 
their 
   measurements taken while 
meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
 entirely 
   to TM.

Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with 
eyes 
   closed reduced oxygen 
consumption by the same amount as TM.

It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 
consumption 
   twice as low as the 
deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's 
 profundity; 
   now TM was equivalent to 
sitting quietly with eyes closed.
   
   
   Wow, still relying on unpublished research and rumor are we? 
 Hardly 
   a 'bombshell'. Unpublished gossip, another arrow to the bigot's 
 bow.
   
   OffWorld
  
  
  
  If you are referring to Kesterson's research, you might wish to 
 consider that it was 
  included in the dissertation for which MIU awarded his PhD.
  
  L B S.
 
 I am really only interested in research published in peer-reviewed 
 journals, though I am sure the research you cite is good, it has no 
 meaning to the world as it stands, and even if it were published it 
 has been somewhat swamped and washed away by the hundreds of other 
 studies showing more important results and the 20 million + dollars 
 in hard won grant money given by the NIH.
 
 OffWorld


Which have nothing to do with O2 consumption, since Kesterson 
published his research...






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[bbrigante]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Response below.
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
 My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
provide 
some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
measures
   of validity. 
  
  Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
  physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
research.  
  I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
 
 **
 
 The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
reduction of oxygen 
 consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
went something like this:
 
 Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
measurements taken while 
 meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed entirely 
to TM.
 
 Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
closed reduced oxygen 
 consumption by the same amount as TM.
 
 It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
twice as low as the 
 deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
now TM was equivalent to 
 sitting quietly with eyes closed.
 
 The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
according to global 
 measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep sleep. 
The claim was the 
 same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
measurement. Now it was 
 teased out of the statistics.
 
 The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
 
 L B S


**

Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of breath 
(which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just a 
measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
significantly lower in TM.






 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: Peer Reviewed Journals -- the Good, Bad and the Ugly

[sparaig]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, L B Shriver 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
  Response below.
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, markmeredith2002 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, akasha_108 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 wrote:
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, off_world_beings
   [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
  My experience is that refereed journals and proceedings 
 provide 
 some degree of feedback and critique, but are not absolute 
 measures
of validity. 
   
   Is anyone here familiar with what kesterton (MIU's first PhD in
   physiology) found in attempting to replicate Wallace's 
 research.  
   I've been told he uncovered a serious methodological problem.
  
  **
  
  The methodological problem had to do with the assumption that the 
 reduction of oxygen 
  consumption was due to TM practice. If I remember correctly, it 
 went something like this:
  
  Subjects sitting quietly with eyes open were compared to their 
 measurements taken while 
  meditating. The drop in oxygen consumption was attributed 
entirely 
 to TM.
  
  Subsequent research showed that just sitting quietly with eyes 
 closed reduced oxygen 
  consumption by the same amount as TM.
  
  It was a bombshell that hardly anyone noticed. O2 consumption 
 twice as low as the 
  deepest point of sleep had been the proof of TM's profundity; 
 now TM was equivalent to 
  sitting quietly with eyes closed.
  
  The next development was metastudies which showed that, 
 according to global 
  measures, TM produced a state of rest twice as deep as deep 
sleep. 
 The claim was the 
  same, but no longer based on a starkly simple, irrefutable 
 measurement. Now it was 
  teased out of the statistics.
  
  The whole thing was smoothed over within a few months.
  
  L B S
 
 
 **
 
 Mebbe so, but what TMer has not experienced the lessening of breath 
 (which subsumes lessening of oxygen consumption), so it's a just a 
 measurement problem -- it's not false that oxygen consumption is 
 significantly lower in TM.


Than what? Keith Wallace sez that prone resting shows the lowest O2 
consumption. You're behind the times...







 Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ~-- 
Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM
~- 

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/