Talk:Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health/Archive 3

Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)
I've just been looking over WP:MEDRS and I'm concerned that many of the sources we use do not comply. First, this does seem to be an article which concerns "biomedical information", so WP:MEDRS does appear to be an appropriate standard. Let's go over some elements of the guideline:
 * Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources: In general, medical information in Wikipedia articles should be based upon published, reliable secondary sources whenever possible. Reliable primary sources can add greatly to an article, but must be used with care because of the potential for misuse.
 * Definitions:  '' A primary source in medicine is one where the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources. A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Literature reviews, systematic review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed. Do not confuse a scientific review (the thing) with peer review (the activity)

The discussion of studies in this article appears to rely mostly upon primary sources.


 * Assess evidence quality: ''Several systems exist for assessing the quality of available evidence on medical subjects, and these should be kept in mind while assessing whether a particular viewpoint is a majority or minority one, and in deciding what constitutes evidence-based medicine. The best evidence comes from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and from systematic reviews of bodies of literature of overall good quality and consistency addressing the specific recommendation. Narrative reviews can help establish the context of evidence quality. Roughly in descending order of quality, lower-quality evidence in medical research comes from individual RCTs, other controlled studies, quasi-experimental studies, and non-experimental studies such as comparative, correlation, and case control studies. Although expert committee reports or opinions, along with clinical experience of respected authorities, are weaker evidence than the scientific studies themselves, they often provide helpful overviews of evidence quality. Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer-reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.

How many of the studies in this article meet the higher standards in this scheme, such as RCTs?


 * Use up-to-date evidence: Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic. If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited in reviews is notable in its own right and can be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews. For example, Genetics might mention Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species'' as part of a discussion supported by recent reviews.

It seems like many of the sources are older than five years, and few (any?) have been included in reviews. Can we use reviews instead?


 * Use independent sources: ''Many medical claims lack reliable research about the efficacy and safety of proposed treatments, or about the legitimacy of statements made by proponents. In such cases, reliable sources may be much more difficult to find and unreliable sources can often be more readily available. Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe notable personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough for inclusion.

How many of the studies in this article were conducted be researchers independent of the proponents of the remedies?

How can we bring this article into compliance with the guideline?  Will Beback   talk    04:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see that the article is out of compliance with the guideline. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources can't be used. It doesn't say that studies older than five years can't be used. And it doesn't say that studies by proponents published in independent peer-reviwed publications can't be used. I'm open to discussion in regard to contextualizing the research in the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good points Timid. Giving context to the research seems appropriate. --BwB (talk) 11:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline places an emphasis on using recent reviews of random, independent studies. Few of the papers cited in this article are independent, random, reviews, or recent. I'm not suggesting deleting them entirely. Even a feather pillow has weight. Perhaps something like "studies conducted by involved researchers have reported positive results" expanded to fit a paragraph or two.    Will Beback    talk    12:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * These are studies published in independent peer-reviewed journals. Which of the journals are you suggesting are peer reviewed by advocates? And in general, which research sections are you referring to? TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've been over this again and again. With respect to Will I'd like to get rid of the word proponents that he uses and which has been tossed around here to suggest  biased involvement, and further to TG's question concerning peer review, what journals are not reliable per Wikipedia. Further clarification would be good.(olive (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to copy in a list of the studies we cite and see which ones are reviews versus primary sources, which are older than five years, and which are not independently published or reviewed. It's my impression that few of the sources for studies that we now have in the article would meet all three criteria.   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * PS: I looked over this page and the archive, and I don't see where this has been discussed and resolved. Many of the sources were added relatively late in the editing of this article, so older discussions might not have included all of the studies currently in the article.   Will Beback    talk    20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The guideline does not restrict use of primary sources, or the use of studies older than 5 years, but qualifies their use. I do think we could check through and see which studies are independently published and reviewed, and if there are studies which do  not fit this criteria then decide if the studies have a place in this article or not.(olive (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC))


 * Rather than apply a general criteria for the sources here, I would prefer to take each source individually and assess its importance and usefulness to the article. WP:MEDRS is a multi faceted guideline whose wording makes it clear that it describes possible guides for diverse situations, and could require different kinds of sources for those situations rather than being a restrictive, set of rules.(olive (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I agree that it's better to use the specific criteria rather then the general WP:RS criteria, that's why I've quoted the specific criteria from WP:MEDRS. I also agree that we should look at the studies individually, but it's not necessary to do so one by one. We can look at all of them based on objective standards and see which are the best which should be kept. I don't think this article should follow rules of its own that contradict those existing guidelines, unless there's a god reason and explicit agreement.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Will, you haven't shown that any of the research in this article is noncompliant, that it contradicts existing guidelines. All of this research should be included. The guideline doesn't say that primary sources can't be used. It doesn't say that studies older than five years can't be used. And it doesn't say that studies by proponents published in independent peer-reviwed publications can't be used. Perhaps as a starting point, you could select one study and explain why it's noncompliant. TimidGuy (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't tried to show that yet. I'm proposing a framework for deciding which studies are compliant and which, if any, are noncompliant. As a test, I'll take your suggestion and pick one to review according to WP:MEDRS.    Will Beback    talk    12:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * My concern with a framework is that the guideline WP:MEDRS is clearly flexible per source, while a framework is probably less so. I wouldn't support a generalized framework specific to sources on this or to any TM articles. We can if it seems necessary analyze every source per the WP:MEDRS guideline.(olive (talk) 02:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)(
 * If there's a special reason to include a source that doesn't otherwise qualify then we can add it back. See the example of Darwin's 1859 book in the text above.   Will Beback    talk    03:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * At this point I'm against creating a framework. We should deal with the sources per the guideline. (olive (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I think there's a misunderstanding here. The "framework" I'm suggesting is just a way of checking to see if the sources meet the specific criteria in WP:MEDRS. There's nothing tricky or original about a framework - I was thinking of a table listing the sources and checkmarks or whatever to see which criteria are met or not met. Your help would be appreciated, but otherwise we can just move forward and you can give input as you see fit. It's all good.   Will Beback    talk    04:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, is Olive being blown off ? Tsk, tsk. As I said, above I'll be referencing the guideline. (olive (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Using the guideline is all I'm asking for.   Will Beback    talk    19:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are saying more than "using the guideline". You seem to wanting to create a "self-designed" framework to judge the MVAH studies.  I have to agree with Olive that we should apply the WP:MEDRS to each study individually and discuss here to see if it merits inclusion - no blanket application of a created standard. --BwB (talk) 10:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that the should apply the WP:MEDRS guideline: that's what this thread is all about. However most of these studies have many elements in common so it isn't necessary to discuss them individually. I might add that there was no discussion of them before they were added. Here for example. The burden of proof is on the editors who wish to add the material.   Will Beback    talk    00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS example


So this reference does not appear to meet any of these four criteria from WP:MEDRS.  Will Beback   talk    22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Study or review?:This appears to be a primary study rather than a secondary review.
 * Quality of study?: No evidence that it was a randomised, controlled trial.
 * Up-to-date evidence?: It is over 17 years old.
 * Independent?: Two of the authors, including the lead author, are or were faculty at MIU.


 * I don't understand. These aren't criteria for inclusion. Are you presenting them as such? It doesn't make any difference how old a study is, for example. Research doesn't somehow rot with time. The reason this guideline exists is because in active, dynamically changing areas of research recent studies and reviews will sometimes supersede earlier studies. So then you go with the more recent work. The purpose is to forestall use of studies that have been made obsolete. That's not the case here. That section of the guideline explicitly says, "These guidelines are appropriate for actively-researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews, and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made and few reviews are being published." TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point Timid. I would also question the Independent criteria.  When research is done on a particular new scientific theory, idea, drug etc., it is very often those closest to the new development who do the study.  The studies on TM were done by the scientist who learned the technique, were familiar with the "subjective" changes that occurred both during and after the practice of TM, and wanted to understand the physiological changes that TM produced.  As the knowledge of brain physiology, for example, developed, scientists wanted to investigate the implications to the TM technique.  Naturally, it is the scientists most familiar with the technique who are going to lead the way.  A roundabout way of saying that just because a scientist who practices TM researches the physiological effects of TM does not necessarily negate the findings.  Could we not say that a scientist who researches the lungs and breathing should be disqualified for researching asthma because he practices the technique of "breathing"? --BwB (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that it isn't a criterion, as Will seems to be suggesting, and note that he hasn't correctly characterized what the guideline says. Which is that a source is considered not to be independent if both the authors and reviewers are proponents. All of this research was published in independent journals and was independently peer reviewed. (And according to the guideline, even in the case that both the authors and reviewers are proponents, it can still be used.) TimidGuy (talk) 17:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've quoted the guideline above. It says, "If recent reviews don't mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious." Do we want to use dubious sources?   Will Beback    talk    19:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point to a recent review of the effect of Transcendental Meditation on the aging process that doesn't mention this study? TimidGuy (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should start by compiling a list of reviews. Individual studies that have been included in those reviews may merit additional details.   Will Beback    talk    11:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant test is finding this paper in a review. If this study hasn't been included in a review then it's considered dubious. It also doesn't appear to be a randomised trial, so it's not high quality in that respect. It was conducted by proponents of the technique so it wasn't done independently. This does not appear to meet the standards of WP:MEDRS on several counts.   Will Beback    talk    19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You're free to make rules up, but Wikipedia editors aren't obligated to abide by guidelines that you invent. TimidGuy (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? What have I written here that's contrary to WP:MEDRS? How would you consider this source in light of that guideline?    Will Beback    talk    11:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where in the guideline does it state that a study must be a randomized controlled trial to be included in Wikipedia, where does it state that a study by a proponent isn't considered independent, where does it state that there must be a review on the topic in order for a study to be included? This source is acceptable in the light of this guideline, which only disallows case reports, popular media, and conference presentations.  TimidGuy (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with Timid on this. --BwB (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take it point by point and see where we are at the end. Does any here argue that this is a randomized, controlled study?   Will Beback    talk    19:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted the WP:MEDRS nutshell to answer the question of how we define ideal sources. the guideline goes on to say: ... it is vital that biomedical information in articles be based on reliable published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.  and  A Wikipedia article should cite the best and most-reliable sources ... Are editors here suggesting that we should use dubious sources instead of those that are the best or most reliable?   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure that editors here have read Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), despite the fact that I quoted most of it above. Studies are primary sources. Let's go through it more slowly: Is there any question that this study is a primary source, per the definition above?  Will Beback   talk    13:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A primary source in medicine is one where the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. They examined the patients, injected the rats or filled the test tubes, or at least supervised those who did. Many, but not all, papers published in medical journals are primary sources.


 * You are reframing the issue. The issue isn't whether this is a primary source or not.The issue is the guideline and its application. Refer to TG 's points above in bold. (olive (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC))
 * The issues is all of the criteria in WP:MEDRS. Does anyone disagree that this is a primary source?   Will Beback    talk    19:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine asking for advice on how to proceed.   Will Beback    talk    00:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It is hard to comment fully on this one source without knowing what the article text is saying based on it. The citation scheme used by this article is bizarre and very hard to work out even if that reference is used at all. To be honest, it is very unlikely that this little primary study should be a source for any text in an encyclopaedia article. These little studies are published to be read by other medical researchers. They are little stepping stones on the way to finding something of clinical importance. I don't have access to the full text of the paper (and if you guys don't either, then you absolutely shouldn't cite it) but according to this letter in the BMJ the author's point out that "long term prospective studies using random assignment methods are obviously needed". That letter also suggests the results of the study are "open to interpretation", which is a polite way of saying the conclusions may not be valid.


 * A very brief look at this WP article indicates to me that all the wrong things are going on. Editors are attempting to perform their own review of the primary research literature. This is exactly what MEDRS recommends to avoid: we should not decide which research study to mention and which to ignore. The job of judging WP:WEIGHT falls to the weight given by reliable sources (and primary sources cannot establish their own weight/notability). Although MEDRS gives some guidance on how to judge a research paper (and links to resources that contain much more in this regard) we should generally be leaving that job to the experts and for us to cite their considered opinion. According to http://ecam.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/3/4/513?ijkey=214ef7578314e2bb716eae68a0f5677398d587df#SEC6] Scholar, that paper is cited by 49 others. Follow the chain up till you find some more useful and more recent source. A 21st century article shouldn't be based on a paper written in the early 1980s. What is the current opinion of experts? What do reviews and other academic monographs and articles from the last 5 years say on the subject? If nobody says anything about it today, or nobody has followed up the little study with a better one, then it suggests it is no longer important or perhaps never was.


 * The "is it a primary source" question is complex and fully depends on what information is being drawn from the cited source. For most purposes, the description in MEDRS is accurate enough. The section "Maharishi Amrit Kalash research studies" is currently just a dumping ground for editors to cherry-pick the primary research that suits whatever case they want to give. Citing animal studies is a big red warning sign that editors are misusing the sources. This section can probably be replaced by a short paragraph drawn from a good secondary source (review, academic book). Colin°Talk 10:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I've found the article text: "Studies have suggested a positive correlation between the practice of the Transcendental Meditation technique and ... an effect the researchers termed "younger biological age"". I'd say that was an accurate claim, meeting WP:V and the phrase "suggested a positive correlation" is appropriately muted based on the sources given. However, the paragraph containing it only lists positive research studies. This might well mean the balance of the paragraph is wrong and the impression given to the reader is there's lots of positive research on TM. We need secondary sources in order to judge this weight and balance. It might be, for example, that such sources indicate most such studies are to small or contain too many methodological errors for them to be taken seriously. Also, it might be that there are lots of (better) studies showing no correlation or the opposite. So while the above text might be literally correct, so might the hypothetical statement "Of the many studies on TM, most showing positive results are very small and poorly designed while the larger, better designed trials show no effect." That's just an example of the sort of thing that might result from looking at better sources (and is quite a common finding with alternative medicine). Colin°Talk 11:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Colin. I guess that goes along with my point of view that it's appropriate to have a muted, brief mention but not to entirely eliminate studies, as Will seems to be suggesting (unless, of course, they can be shown to have been superseded). And early on in this discussion I told Will that I was open to creating context for this research. We don't want to give the impression that it's evidenced-based medicine when it isn't. I think it could be said that some of the research on Transcendental Meditation is now evidenced-based, with RCTs and meta-analyses. But the Amrit Kalash research, for example, is in a different ballpark. I agree that that can be condensed and contextualized. Where I disagree with Will is that I think it's important in an article about Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health to at least note that these studies exist as a way of letting the reader know that this is being researched and that there are tentative results. There are around 50 studies on the herbs done at quite a few different universities, so I think it's appropriate to mention that this research is going on and what areas are being looked at, but without making health claims, of course. I think your last point captures the spirit of MEDRS in a way that Will may be ignoring. It's important to look at the research in the total context. If there's a meta-analysis or review that draws a conclusion that obviates specific primary sources, then that's what we go with. But if such a meta-analysis or review doesn't exist, then it may be appropriate to have a muted mention of a study. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Beware of interpreting my last paragraph as encouragement to explicitly mention/cite these studies, albeit in a muted way. There was a big "however" in there! There are three issues. Firstly, let's imagine there are only three studies on drug X and they each show promise for treating conditions A, B and C respectively. What we've got at the moment is equivalent to
 * Studies on drug X show promise for treating conditions A,1 B2 and C.3
 * where 1, 2 and 3 are citations to primary research papers. One would expect to find such a style of text+citations in a literature review in a medical journal. We, however, are an encyclopaedia so our approach should be
 * Studies on drug X show promise for treating conditions A, B and C.4
 * where 4 is a literature review paper published in 2009 in a reliable journal.


 * Even though the text is the same, there's a lot of hidden benefit in citing the review. We are saying "An expert has performed a literature search, has selected these studies on certain quality, importance and clinical relevance criteria, and has published this analysis in a reliable source". What is more, we are able to say that even if study A was from 1982, its findings are still noteworthy today.


 * The second issue, which I mentioned above, is that in the real world it is likely that those are not the only three studies, or that there is some aspect of those studies (size, method, conclusions, etc) that deserves comment. These are the issues that come to light when reading the reviews but cannot or must not come from a DIY approach. If there were just three studies on the whole subject then perhaps one could give them space, but in fact if there are thirty studies then it might be the article text just has to give a broad brush treatment to the subject. Perhaps just a sentence on the state of the limited research to date.


 * The last issue is that we should be really reluctant to mention studies at all. We aren't "Medical News Today". Encyclopaedias mention facts. We don't say "Studies have found aspirin to be an effective painkiller" (though one might mention the early or seminal studies in the history section of the article on aspirin). For areas where the research is conclusive, we can give the results as fact and need not give the background. However, I suspect most of the research on this topic is a long way from conclusive. Small studies cannot be extrapolated to the general population (at least, not by Wikipedians) so we must never say something like "Practising TM lowers anxiety leading to longer, less stressful life", citing a study of 20 individuals over two months. Whenever we find that the point being made cannot be made conclusively, then one must question whether that point should be made at all in an encyclopaedia. Unless some herb has been conclusively shown to treat or prevent some cancer in humans, then mentioning and citing some lab study on the herb's effect on melanoma cells is just wrong. The hidden message in mentioning that study is that a person might benefit from the herb: such a hidden message needs a source and that can only come from a very reliable secondary source.


 * If you do want a section or paragraphs discussing the current state of the research into TM, etc, then this will be best done by finding a source whose purpose is to document the current state of the research into TM, etc. Colin°Talk 13:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If we examine a number of WP articles on medical topics having only a modest amount of research, do we find that the strict guidelines being proposed by Colin and Will Beback  are adhered to? I would guess that the application of such strict guidelines would result in the removal or major curtailment of a large number of articles. This position also assumes that WP editors are never specialists in the topic of the article they are editing. I question whether this is so. If it were, WP would become essentially useless when it comes to leading edge articles. ChemistryProf (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that 20 year old research is really "leading edge". I'm not sure what the definition is of "only a modest amount of research". We cite dozens of studies in this article alone. The movement repeatedly mentions the number of studies showing the efficacy of their treatments, so those engaged in the research seem to think it is well-researched. That being the case, the use of reviews and meta-analysis instead of primary studies is appropriate. This is like any topic: if we don't have sufficiently reliable sources to support an assertion then we should leave it out rather than lowering our standards.   Will Beback    talk    20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Will Beback on this. The above study is cited 49 times in the literature: this is not a marginal neglected subject. Surely one of those citations is a useful review source. Just because it is easy to do a PubMed search of the primary research literature doesn't mean that is an appropriate way to build an article on WP. Searching PubMed for "transcendental meditation" shows there are 260 reviews mentioning the topic, and at least 28 of them have freely available full text online. Searching for "Maharishi Vedic" highlights 7 reviews, all of which are freely available online. I'm sure there are academic books on the topic too. This says to me there is absolutely no excuse for this subject to not be founded upon such sources. Perhaps the resistance here is that folk are trying to build the article based on the little snippet of information in a PubMed abstract rather than do proper research and get hold of the literature in full. Typically, a review's abstract says bugger-all, forcing you to read the damn thing :-) See WikiProject Resource Exchange if you need help here. Colin°Talk 21:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and "WP editors are never specialists in the topic of the article they are editing". Very very true. They might be in real life, and it is enormously helpful if they are, but we can't trust/believe this to be the case. Wikipedia editors have no authority and their opinions on the primary research literature carry no weight. We are anonymous. We aren't notable. We have no reputation. This is why we refuse original research and academic journals and publishers demand original research. Colin°Talk 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have clearly stated my position earlier. Per WP:MEDRS virtually everything in the TM, TM-Sidhi and MVAH articles relating to the purported medical effects of these programs and products should be deleted as based on primary sources.  Virtually all of the studies being cited are primary sources.  There has never been any rational basis advanced by any editor as to why, out of the nearly one thousand studies on TM and its affiliated programs and products, the handful cherry picked by the TM-Movement affiliated editors should merit special mention or prominence.  It gives the featured studies undue weight and creates false impressions as to how that research is regarded in the scientific and medical community. MEDRS is quite specific that the highest and best sources for these matters are independently-conducted metaanalyses. Those handful of independent metanalyses should be what these articles feature and concentrate on when they discuss medical effects. Instead, they are buried as if mere afterthoughts (when the Fairfield contingent has ultimately proven unsuccessful in getting them excised entirely, or alternatively completely misrepresented) among an avalanche of primary sources. Fladrif (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some issues here that should be clarified. The article has a section listing studies related to Amrit Kalash.  If those studies are  simply describing the research and if the language used in the section carefully ensures that the information given is describing the study and its results, but is  not being used to  support content that is laying out information such as, "Amrit Kalash is known to be a cure for cancer"  then the studies themselves are not being used as sources, but contribute to the available information on Amrit Kalash. The issues then are not whether a study is a primary source, but whether it is significant and necessary in describing the state of research on Amrit Kalsh. The  the study's weight per the article and per the section must be determined.(olive (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC))


 * I believe there are webpages that list all of the studies and even have abstracts. We could link to those and say something like, "There have been many studies..." That would address the issue of letting readers know there have been the studies without using them as sources.   Will Beback    talk    00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Here: Scientific Research on Maharishi Ayurveda. That links to lists of studies, which link to abstracts.   Will Beback    talk    00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just link everything and have no article at all. We are writing an encyclopedia so our job is not to abdicate the responsibility to links to other sites but to give the reader a good sense of what is on those sites.(olive (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * Our job is to summarize secondary sources, not to pick and choose primary sources and then decide which details are interesting.   Will Beback    talk    00:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody advocating that. Nice edit summary by the way.:o) (olive (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * They may or may not be "advocating" it, but that's what's happening.   Will Beback    talk    01:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, that's just not fair. If there's cherry picking going on its going on all over the place. Rather than assume editors are cherry picking why not just assume they come at this from different angles, they don't always agree, and they are doing the best they can. Collaboration levels the playing field.

Disagreeing does not equal cherry picking, its just disagreeing.(olive (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC))
 * I never used the term "cherry picking". But it's a general principle across Wikipedia to avoid using primary sources. That limitations serves several purposes: one of which is that secondary sources act as a filter separate worthwhile information from less valuable info. Without secondary sources the only other criteria we have is personal interest. Remember, too, that there was no discussion or consensus to add most of these sources, which were added late in the editing process. Anyway, Colin and WhatamIdoing have added outside views, let's pay attention to what they say.   Will Beback    talk    03:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If editors are using primary sources then they will be doing the selection. Whether this is blatantly biased enough to call "cherry picking" or an honest attempt to select those studies that are of high-quality, novelty and interest to the reader, or ends up a battle between two opposing camps to include an equal proportion of studies favouring their case, it is still a game that Wikipedians should not play. WP:WEIGHT makes it clear that the judge is the proportion of weight given by reliable sources (i.e. those commenting on the studies, which will be necessarily secondary sources). Weight is not determined by the consensus of wikipedians looking at the raw data (i.e., the primary studies themselves). That path just leads to endless talk-page discussions every time some newbie adds something. There are plenty good secondary sources out there that would cover this topic more than adequately. There is no excuse not to be using them. Colin°Talk 10:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Colin, for your input. You make some good points. First I have a dumb question, if you don't mind. When I search on 'Transcendental Meditation" in Pubmed, I get about 260 results. You said above that such a search produces 260 reviews. But the results that I see are mostly links to individual studies. And apart from that, let's continue with the example of this study. I followed your tip and used Google Scholar to find this review of studies on Transcendental Meditation that I wasn't aware of. What would be the next step? Remove the individual study and summarize the discussion in this review? Since this is a secondary source, would we include more than the few words that were originally given, for example mentioning some of the components of aging that were studied? TimidGuy (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't put "Transcendental Meditation" in quotes when I searched so got far more results. Perhaps a bit of a mix of both search styles will be useful. I'm sure there will be other phrases you guys know to search for (sometimes literature reviews will tell you what PubMed search terms they used, which is valuable). You need to work form the bottom up (sources citing the ones you've found) and top down (finding reviews and books and looking at what they cite). Once you've amassed a small collection of literature, it should be clearer what the consensus is.
 * I'm a bit disappointed in the review you found to be honest. It has some of the advantages I listed but the author is clearly utterly devoted to his Master (see Acknowledgments) and a quick glance at some of the papers the chap has produced show someone on the fringe of science. Without being able to read the Wallace 1982 paper, I can't fully judge the review text but to say "Wallace found, that instead of increasing with age as is normally the case, auditory threshold decibel levels tend to decrease with years of regular meditation, a reversal of the aging process" you need two things: a randomised controlled trial, and to follow people over a period of many years. Instead, the the study appeared to be a one-off snapshot of the "biological age" of a small number of people. Without a RCT, only can only claim an association with folk who happen to have meditated for several years, not a "decrease with years of meditation". The abstract gives no confidence intervals or even whether the claimed reduction in biological age was statistically significant. I'd be very suprised if a trial with only 11 controls could claim much. As I said, the more literature you find on the topic, the more confident you will be that you are reflecting the true picture. Colin°Talk 20:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Will wrote: "I never used the term "cherry picking". But it's a general principle across Wikipedia to avoid using primary sources." You make a very important point here. It's important to keep in mind that much TM and Maharishi Ayurveda research is primary research. This issue is further exacerbated by the fact that even if TM researchers are involved, they may not be labelled as such.It makes one wonder what can be added and retain the spirit of the wikipedia. On a separate point, while recently lead containing and mercury containing herbal compounds produced by the Maharishi pharmaceutical companies stopped "officially" being shipped to the US, smuggling by individuals is still relatively common. For example I know people who frequently (several times a year) have Maharishi Ayurvedic heavy metal-based compounds smuggled in by movement members (Purusha). Of course the most famous example of this trend was the poisoning of a mothers fetus with Maharishi medicines containing, I believe lead, in Maharishi Vedic City and she (Frances Gaskell) retaliated by a law suit. The mother was not only born with high lead levels, so was the baby. I believe this was settled out of court. Of course this doesn't mean you could not still get these medicines in India easily. And the FDA often will not frown on individuals carrying their own medicines from abroad, so it's easy to get the stuff back into the USA still. Numerous men take the Maharishi Ayurveda "boner pill" which is made from mercury and gold, even Purusha. You still find them listed on Maharishi Ayurveda Indian websites.--Kala Bethere (talk) 15:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The pills are called "Energol MA" and are shown at: http://maharishiamritkalash.com/euro/maharishi-energol-ma
 * I believe these sites are not MAPI official sites, but an MAPI product retailer in India who exports. Close examination of the MA product does show them to contain a small amount of mercuric sulfide and this is listed in milligrams on the product labeling and in it's package insert.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual product was called Garbhapal Ras. See http://www.religionnewsblog.com/20848/maharishi-ayurveda "Tests by the Iowa Department of Public Health found the herb Garbhapal Ras was comprised of nearly 3 percent lead. Maharishi Ayurveda Products Ltd. is identified on the product bottle as the manufacturer, the lawsuit states."--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a review in the Journal of Aging and Health. It has the advantage that it also includes research on herbs. Seems like a source we could use. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a review like that is much better than just picking studies on our own. Let's use that in place of the primary sources now in the article.   Will Beback    talk    04:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, it's written by at least three associates of the TM Org: Robert H. Schneider, M.D., Charles N. Alexander, Ph.D., and Sanford I. Nidich, Ed.D. Therefore it is a review that is Primary Source. "Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used."
 * Another problem is assessing biological aging in a group of people who are involved in all sorts of unusual diets and herbal products? How can you sort out a reliable variable related to aging with all this background activity?--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It does give a good overview some of the research relevant to health, and seems to represent better selection. Part of the review is a bit dated, given that it was published in 2002 and some of the best research on cardiovascular disease has been published since then, and also a few of the more significant Amrit Kalash studis. It will take some time. Maybe Kbob could begin working on the TM part, since I believe he was the one to originally put in the TM studies. I could work on the herbal research section. I would simply summarize that Amrit section of the review and note the findings in the same fashion as it does, giving a ref or two for each point. TimidGuy (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This review isn't independent, so we shouldn't place too much weight on it compared to the reviews written by independent authors. Perhaps a paragraph would be sufficient to summarize its main points?   Will Beback    talk    20:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I have clearly stated my position earlier. Per WP:MEDRS virtually everything in the TM, TM-Sidhi and MVAH articles relating to the purported medical effects of these programs and products should be deleted as based on primary sources. Virtually all of the studies being cited are primary sources. There has never been any rational basis advanced by any editor as to why, out of the nearly one thousand studies on TM and its affiliated programs and products, the handful cherry picked by the TM-Movement affiliated editors should merit special mention or prominence."
 * Very well said. You nailed it. Unfortunately that's a problem with a lot of TM-related research, it was done by True Believers. Same issue in some other meditation research. It's not just TM. Most studies are not independent. This unfortunately renders many studies impossible to include according to WP:MEDRS.
 * Perhaps I'm missing something, but since independence is a key part of WP:MEDRS, how could we even consider a study by the former President of Maharishi International University and one of it's professors as even remotely independent?--Kala Bethere (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would just add, for the record, that I think it would be difficult to evaluate properly, or consider for inclusion, any article which is not available, in full (i.e., a PDF or some similar format).--Kala Bethere (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI, the above study (The effects of the transcendental meditation and TM-Sidhi program on the aging process) is included in the independent review found here: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/medittp.htm --Kala Bethere (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The Aging and Health review can't be summarized in a single paragraph. And there's nothing in the guideline that suggests it should be. It was independently peer-reviewed and published in an independent journal. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We can summarize the first several years of the Second Sino-Japanese War in a paragraph here, World_War_II, so I think we can manage to summarize an academic paper in a paragraph too. As for independence, every author of the review was connected to MUM, and in some cases they were reviewing their own papers. Was Churchill's history of WWII independent just because it was published by someone besides himself? Not by most reckonings. That doesn't mean it's worthless, just that it has to be viewed in context.     Will Beback    talk    12:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * May I make a suggestion? Since the issue of WP:MEDRS and TM-affiliated research is likely to come up again and again, wouldn't it make sense to compile a table of all the relevant TM studies. Then simply put a strikethrough on studies that are not independent or do not meet WP:MEDRS (or whatever criteria). One of the columns of the table could be the reason it cannot be included. That could then form a template from which all TM-related articles could chose from. Plus it would give TM-related article editors a way to ensure that their entries use the best research available, a type of WP quality assurance. If we improve the research quality that can be quoted, it would improve all articles that quote such data.--Kala Bethere (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I meant by a "framework" for evaluating the studies. You explained it better than I did.   Will Beback    talk    17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No one has yet shown a study that doesn't meet Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please give me an example. In this thread it was suggested that the Wallace study might not meet the guideline because it wasn't included in a review. Now we've found it in thee reviews. Regarding independence, all of the studies referenced in this article were published in independent third-party sources. You're free to make up rules regarding what you think constitutes independence, but other editors aren't obligated to follow them. TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If we have the review then why do we need to include the original study?   Will Beback    talk    12:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make any difference to me whether we cite a review or a study, as long as we give some indication of what the various studies have found. TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, then let's compile a list of the reviews that cover MVAH-related technologies and base the research components of this article on those. That'll give the article a firmer foundation.     Will Beback    talk    12:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If we insist on research replication and research reviews that are performed by non-MUM, independent researchers (which are more reliable, all other factors being the same), we will have very little coverage of TM claims, not to mention the more controversial (and possibly Fringe Science) MVAH claims. If salt cured cancer, no one would do research to prove it, since no research funding is available from manufacturers of salt. That is why most medical research is done on pharmaceuticals, particularly expensive new drugs. Similarly, there are almost no funding sources for studies of TM and MVAH since they provide no profit streams for businesses that could provide up-front funding. Since only MUM has resources available (including student labor, access to subjects, and administration by credentialled medical personnel), most MVAH research is by necessity primary and open to COI criticism. This situation is liable to continue for the indefinite future, until TM is generally accepted, which will probably be many years from now, if ever. So arguably low-quality work like either of the AHRQ reports (which are, strangely, almost unique in claiming little health value from any kind of meditation) would be our only sources: a most unpleasant situation in terms of WP:CITE, WP:RS, and especially WP:MEDRS. Our choice, then, I think, is simple: either omit any pretense of validation by research or accept all research, including AHRQ and primary studies by MUM. David Spector 05:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it would be difficult to show that the TM movement does not profit from the sales of MVAH products. Since they operate businesses that manufacture and market them, presumably they profit from those products. The movement has plenty of assets and income, so it could fund the studies itself. Further, it has shown an ability to apply and receive research grants from the US government. On Wikipedia it's bad policy to lower the standards because of a lack of good sources. If we can't find adequate sources we should simply remain silent by deleting the poorly sourced or unsourced material.   Will Beback    talk    07:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

COI and independence
Regardless of whether you think this group's reputation is deserved, the fact is that it has a strong reputation for suppressing negative information and promoting positive information about the people, ideas, and practices that are connected with it. Because of this, I believe that every single paper that was produced by employees of MIU or other 'wholly owned subsidiaries' should be (briefly) identified as such for the reader.

We should do this in exactly the same way that we do this (and should do this) for a paper published by employees of a nutraceutical manufacturer or other outfit with a clear conflict of interest. So it's not "A study showed reduced aging"; it's "A study at the Maharishi International University showed reduced aging", or whatever simple description provides appropriate context.

In doing this, we are providing strictly factual information, not passing judgment. It's up to the reader to decide whether MIU's connection means "ignore this, because those cultists would never publish the truth" or "finally, an AltMed study that was run by a true expert on the subject instead of some government bureaucrat".

Does anyone object to this or think that readers are better served by concealing these connections? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is a long, long history of MIU/MUM/TM advocates, etc. publishing biased and non-NPOV research, I believe it would be imperative to include such connections WhatamIdoing. For example, it we were writing about cigarette safety, would we want to include a study, performed by tobacco companies that said 'cigarettes are good for you' to not show that it was performed by an institute created by the tobacco companies themselves? Would we want research by coal companies that said acid rain and CO2 were good for the environment which pretend there was no connection to the coal companies? Same with TM, it's sold by the TM movement and they benefit from the studies they put out. The sad thing is, even after decades, the research quality is still poor. A recent one on cardiac health doesn't even correct for placebo (they are mostly compared to "health education"), a long-standing problem with TM investigations by TM people. If you don't show these connections, you're doing the readers a great disservice.--Kala Bethere (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If all this is true (and I don't doubt you) then we should be able to find sources that explicitly say these things. Most of the criticisms you make can be thrown at the drug industry and I wouldn't want our drug articles to be littered with caveats and "by the way, did you know" comments and aspersions. We must neither make our encyclopaedic article prove, in front of the reader, the case for the efficacy of these treatments, or imply the worthlessness of the research. What do our best sources say about the efficacy and the research? Colin°Talk 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If these "connections" and issues with the research are as you say, then you'll be able to provide sources to let you say them. Find someone who says TM research is rubbish quality, biased and loaded. We mustn't say that ourselves, or imply such issues by what apparently neutral text we add. There are plenty folk on WP who think all drug-funded research is impossibly tainted and the same "sold by ... benefit from the studies they put out...research quality poor..." arguments are made there too! Colin°Talk 19:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Pharmaceutical companies have also been in the news for concealing negative research and we don't publish any COI statements about research funded by them. I think it is a slippery slope towards implicit editorialising by Wikipedians. Now, if a secondary source were to say "most of the studies conducted by XX are of poor quality" or "are biased" or whatever, then that sort of info could be explicitly stated. But this all comes back to the issue that we should try hard not to be the ones judging what primary research is poor/biased/tainted. Use the independent secondary sources as a filter and to allow us to explicitly comment on the studies' qualities or choose not to mention those studies that nobody else mentions. Colin°Talk 20:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See my comment at the end of the above discussion section. I think it is usually good to mention the study site, especially when talking about a primary study in the absence of any secondary studies in the field. As a scientist, I certainly like to know when I am reading a drug research study that was funded by a pharmaceutical company. In fact, authors of research articles must list their funding sources and potential conflict of interest information when publishing in any decent journal. This is as it should be. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If a primary research study has been mentioned/discussed by no secondary sources, then it almost certainly shouldn't be mentioned/discussed by a tertiary source (Wikipedia). We are not writing for scientists and we are not writing a literature review (which does typically cite the seminal primary research, and scientists can follow the citation chain to find out any COI if they want to). This is an encyclopaedia for the general reader. Colin°Talk 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Colin about the slippery slope. Our role as Wiki editors is to summarize and present material cited to reliable sources. Yes some studies have been conducted by MUM, many have been conducted by other universities, yet others have been conducted at independent universities but in coordination with MUM. To complicate things further many of the studies are published in peer reviewed journals. I don't think that it is our role to decide which studies go in which category and them give them an editorial label. The references give the reader the info they need to make their own decisions and judgment. -- — Kbob • Talk  • 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The job of deciding which studies are worthwhile is performed by writers of reviews, which is why we should depend on those rather than our own judgements.   Will Beback    talk    22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, secondary sources (reviews) are of variable quality also, just like primary sources. So I cannot accept the blanket assumption that secondary sources are always better. They can be extremely limited in their approach, and only in rare cases should they serve as a final, most reliable source for anything. ChemistryProf (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If there's a problem with some reviews then we won't use those. Even the middling ones have better judgment then Wikipedia editors.   Will Beback    talk    04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You make it sound easy. However, someone has to decide which reviews have problems, and who is that someone other than the editors? Then we are right back where we started--haggling over sources. Editors are always having to decide. I have authored reviews and am familiar with the types of shortcomings that plague both the qualitative reviews and the systematic, quantitative ones. Believe me, accepting reviews as the final arbiter of reliability is not much less dangerous than looking at several independent sources and doing one's own evaluation. In fact, there is no fool-proof way to judge outcomes. The best anyone can do is to be aware of all the criteria that need to be considered in judging research and to form one's own opinions accordingly. It is somewhat ludicrous to argue in these discussions about what to put in the article and what not to. In my evaluation, the ideal is to put the research before people with enough description to let them decide on their own. This goes for reviews as well as primary sources. Sorry to be so negative here, but this is the situation. ChemistryProf (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There aren't very many reviews, so it shouldn't take long. You're the one who raised the issue of problems, so I assume you have something in mind. Maybe it'd be better to start a fresh thread about which reviews are good and which don't qualify. Then we can rewrite our research sections based on that evaluation.   Will Beback    talk    21:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Will Beback, I had an urgent chore to take care of and couldn't visit the WP projects for awhile. The point I was trying to make is that the only thing we editors can do is accept or reject sources based on WP guidelines. Review articles vary in their quality and accuracy, and thus in their outcomes, just as individual research studies do. There is no final arbiter who pronounces one review better than the other. It is a decision to be made by the reader. We editors can make such decisions, but we are limited to whatever WP reliable sources we can find to back up those decisions, as we always are. So we are right back where we started from. ChemistryProf (talk) 17:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For Kala and others who didn't know: "health education" is a standard control procedure used in many types of human studies. In this case (for cardiac health), it means that the control group practiced dietary modifications and exercises. It doesn't mean that they sat in a classroom and learned about health for 20 minutes twice a day. Health education is a cheaper control procedure than comparing the effects of TM with the effects of all other possible kinds of meditation. Unfortunately, there is no agreed "standard" meditation to which TM can be compared, so the basic health education control method is used. David Spector 22:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just reading an article on an unrelated topic in which someone referred to peer-reviewed studies. In this case, they contained findings which showed soda pop does not lead to obesity. "...[T]heir findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's the gold standard in the scientific community", said "Kevin Keane, senior vice president, public affairs, for the American Beverage Assn". The reporter, and the other scientists he quotes, don't seem so sure of the value of those findings. In any case, things are complicated.  Will Beback   talk    06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Lancaster Medical Director
It is my opinion that the above text has specific relevance to the assertion that medical doctors have been replaced. Therefore it should not be deleted from the Reception section regardless of the fact that the Medical Director's name may or may not appear in another section.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "According to the Maharishi Ayurveda Health Center of Lancaster website, their current Medical Director is a licensed medical doctor who is also trained in Maharishi Ayurveda."
 * Are you disputing that the medical doctors were replaced in the MAV organization by Indian MAV practitioners in 2005 or that having a medical degree is no longer a prerequisite to training in MAV?Fladrif (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'd thought it was there to show something about reception, in which case who they hire is not really important. This could be better summarized by saying that "However, the medical director at one health center is still a physician". Otherwise the point doesn't really come cross. Isn't Lonsdorf also a medical director somewhere? I doubt it'd be possible to have a "medical director" without an medical degree. However, given that there are at least dozens of health centers, and given that the role of their medical directors isn't clear, one or two counterexamples don't prove that the original claim is substantially incorrect.   Will Beback    talk    20:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I know Medical Doctors (MD's) who took the course to become MAPI Ayurvedic "physicians". They took a token course of a week, were given a PC program which had a database on it and would print out all the recommended remedies, behavioral routines and diet recommendations from the MAPI materia medica. Diagnosis was based on a simple doshic questionnaire and a pulse diagnosis ripped off of Trigunaji (the Maharishi basically used his affiliation with these other Vaidyas to get access to their techniques or recipes, then he would try to copyright them as his own and sell them at super high prices to gullible westerners). Since the physicians themselves were already MD's, they could generally get insurance reimbursement, so it was an easy in for insurance monies and gave people interested in Maharishi Ayurveda a way to get healthcare services and still use their insurance to pay for it. The TM org agreed to refer patients in the area the physician lived, but the referrals never materialized.


 * So that's the way the centers were set up: an Allopath posing as a Vaidya to keep the insurance money coming in. --Kala Bethere (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that background. However, as you must know by now, our personal knowledge can't be used as the basis for article edits.   Will Beback    talk    23:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Will for making this point to Kala. --BwB (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have amended the sentence in the direction suggested by Will above, to clarify the point of the sentence in the article. There may be other MDs at other facilities, I'm not sure. If I come across other sources we can include that info later. Thanks for the discussion.-- — Kbob • Talk  • 16:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

MVAH Non-Compliant, Primary Sources which violate WP:Fringe, etc.
It looks like this entry also needs a massive edit. Please discuss in section below.

--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Discuss Non-compliant, WP:Fringe, etc. Sources
Discuss Non-compliant, WP:Fringe, etc. sources here please.--Kala Bethere (talk) 14:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I say as per WP:Fringe non-independent sources can be used to reference what it is that believers believe but not to reference main-stream views of beliefs. In other words these sources can be used to demonstrate that TM followers believe they can accomplish X. But to demonstrate that TM followers actually can accomplish X we need an independent source. Simonm223 (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Changed the TM section to reflect the best available evidence
Agreement here. Please get consensus before reverting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * this is a link to your Talk page. I don't see the relevant discussion. Thanks. TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks and fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

MVVT Section
I see that the whole MVVT section has been removed, with the reason given that all the sources are primary. It may be more courteous to other editors to make a note of the concern on the talk pages first and ask for editors to improve the article rather than simply erase the text from the article. It may also be acceptable to use primary sources for this section, but I am happy to hear form other editors on this. Perhaps we can restore the removed text pending further discussion? Thanks. --BwB (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any secondary sources available? Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on secondary sources. It's OK to use primary sources for illustrative purposes when we already have a secondary source making the same assertions, but that doesn't appear to be the case here. Of all of the techniques discussed in this article, MVVT appears to be the one which makes the most remarkable claims and which has received the least study even within the movement. Do you want to add back poorly sourced material that makes astonishing health claims?   Will Beback    talk    21:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

How about putting the following text back in for now and we work at finding secondary sources (if possible) for the benefit claims?
 * Maharishi Vedic Vibration Technology (MVVT) is performed by an MVVT Vedic expert who whispers within themselves some specific traditional Vedic sounds that have been chosen to address the health concerns of that individual, and then administers the sound vibrations by blowing on the affected area of the body. A website for the Maharishi Medical Centers says that MVVT offers "relief from a wide range of chronic health problems", including athlete's foot, baldness, HIV, and cancer of the blood. " --BwB (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You're kidding, right?   Will Beback    talk    23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest we take a middle road here. I think Will has a good point that we need solid sources for such extraordinary health claims. At the same time I'm not sure we should pretend the program does not exist. Can't we describe the program and leave the health claims out? It seems to be mentioned in several secondary sources. -- — Kbob •  Talk  • 00:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever we write should be based mainly on secondary sources. If there are good secondary sources then let's summarize what they say about this technology.   Will Beback    talk    00:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a secondary source. Page 155 mentions the research. Looks like it could be used as a source for other content in this article as well. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this approach to give text on the MVVT program and leave out medical benefits unless they can be found in secondary sources. --BwB (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My caution on the source TG found is that the chapter in question was written by Gary P. Kaplan, one of the high poobahs of MVAH. When he's writing about the research, he's not a secondary source. This is not an independent review of the literature, as he's writing about either his own research or that of his immediate colleagues and co-workers. So, I don't think it will qualify under WP:MEDRS for anything he writes about the studies on MVAH therapies or products.Fladrif (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact is that MVAH does indeed include outrageous and unusual medical claims that do not have good (independent) research validation. I think the fact that these alternative procedures are said e.g. to cure cancer is very important to the subject matter. Without that information, readers may think that MVAH is just about relaxing while warm oil drips on one's forehead. The medical claims and other aspects should be included, along with a standard medical disclaimer and a warning that WP does not necessarily recommend such methods. For those who don't know, the use of alternative unproven therapies can delay the use of standard medical treatment, and therefore lead to death. This is why a disclaimer is important. We are arguing over the wrong thing here (the quality of research) instead of the right thing (describing the nature and claims of MVVT and remotely-performed Yagyas in the article). Readers need to know the truth about all of MVAH, not just about the parts that have scientific validation (if any). MVAH is not TM. The claims are different. David Spector 22:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree somewhat. WP as far as I know doesn't use formal disclaimers, one reason for the inception of WP:MEDRS. but the wording must indicate the current state of the research with, whatever information is available that comments on the research itself. This has to be done with out suggestion that these are mainstream treatments or other claims. (olive (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Gary Kaplan hasn't done research on TM. He's a clinical associate professor of neurology at New York University School of Medicine and Director of Clinical Neurophysiology at North Shore University Hospital. He's a TM proponent, but MEDRS doesn't disallow reviews by proponents. This review is in a book on evidence-based medicine. I'd go along with what Olive says. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Kaplan does hold a position within the movement. He is "chairman of the New York Committee for Stress-Free Schools", according to the Globe and Mail.   Will Beback    talk    20:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Would being chairman of a committee disqualify this as a source? TimidGuy (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My view is that it is a reliable source to be used with attribution.   Will Beback    talk    11:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kaplan is (or was) "Minister of Health Clinics in Maharishi's Global Country of World Peace" and a member of the Medical Advisory Board of the "Maharishi Vedic Prevention Center" in Hamden CT and was "Executive Director for Perfect Health for the state of New York in Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law".. I'll assume, in good faith, that TG didn't know that. Fladrif (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I correct in guessing that he is a close relative of Raja of India Harris Kaplan?Fladrif (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your guess is as good as any. I think Kaplan is a fairly common name. --BwB (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest we can use the Kaplan source, but we should make his connection to the movement clear. Something like, "According to Dr. Gary Kaplan, medical advisor to a Maharishi Vedic spa and minister of health clinics for the GCWP, ..." Then readers can judge his comments in context.   Will Beback    talk    21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we are going to mention titles then we shouldn't cherry pick. Does he have other medical titles?-- — Kbob • Talk  • 22:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's "cherry picking" to communicate that he works for a business which sells the products or procedures he's writing about. Do you have a problem with that disclosure?   Will Beback    talk    23:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Gary P Kaplan bio:

"Gary P. Kaplan M.D., Ph.D., is a neurologist, neuroscientist, educator, and Associate Professor of Clinical Neurology at New York University School of Medicine. He is the former Director of Clinical Neurophysiology at North Shore University Hospital. Dr. Kaplan has lectured extensively and has been interviewed on CNN’s Bullseye, Paging Dr. Gupta, and other network news programs, discussing the deleterious effects of stress on executives and school children and its reduction through innovative, non-invasive approaches. Dr. Kaplan received his BS in biology, with a special concentration in neurobiology and behavior, at Cornell University. He received his PhD in neural science at Washington University, and his MD at the University of Miami PhD to MD program. He undertook post-graduate training in neurology at Yale University School of Medicine, where he also served as chief resident in neurology and clinical instructor. While an attending neurologist and director of the course in neuroscience at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, he received the Albert H. Douglas award from the Medical Society of the State of New York for outstanding achievements as a clinical teacher interested in promoting and improving medical education of physicians. Dr. Kaplan is the author of numerous articles in basic neuroscience research and clinical neurology."
 * Perhaps we can pick a few points from this as well. --BwB (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem identifying who Kaplan is in the article but we should provide a balanced representation of who he his, by also including some of his other titles. I don't think we should cherry pick just the TM titles, in order to make an editorial point. Does anyone have a problem with providing a balanced view of who he is?-- — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 14:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a balanced presentation of Kaplan seems reasonable. --BwB (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying, by analogy, that a researcher presenting views on the safety of cigarettes works for the Tobacco Institute is not "cherry picking". It's important background. For example, where is it that we find this bio?   Will Beback    talk    20:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you are opposed to a balanced representation of his credentials? --<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said that. But some of his credentials are more relevant than others.    Will Beback    talk    16:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What is relevant and why? And who is deciding relevance?(olive (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Gary P. Kaplan, M.D., Ph.D. received his Ph.D. in Neural Science at Washington University and earned his medical degree at the University of Miami. He undertook postgraduate training in neurology at Yale University School of Medicine, where he also served as chief resident and clinical instructor in neurology. Dr. Kaplan received the Albert H. Douglas Award from the Medical Society of the State of New York for outstanding achievement as a clinical teacher. He is board certified in clinical neurophysiology from both the American Association of Electromyography and Electrodiagnosis, and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. Dr. Kaplan is Associate Professor of Clinical Neurology at New York University School of Medicine. He specializes in EMG and nerve conduction studies of painful nerve root and peripheral nerve disorders.--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> • Talk  • 14:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite a complete bio. Interesting what folks leave out.   Will Beback    talk    19:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its clearly obvious from this thread that the part of the bio you are obliquely referring to, is already a given as part of the bio... The concern as this discussion outlines, is that including just the so called TM connection such as it is, is a somewhat one sided view of the man and creates a POV.(olive (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
 * "So called TM connection"? Is there any question that Kaplan is connected to the the TM movement?   Will Beback    talk    20:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"So called " refers to the fact that I was naming something that was not named but implied, rather than a way of questioning the connection. The syntax may have been confusing. I don't think there are secrets about any of his connections. I believe the issue is making sure he is presented in a neutral way.(olive (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC))
 * FYI, the bio appears out of date. He's not listed as having a position in the neurology department of NYU, though he still has a minimal page there.   Will Beback    talk    20:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

"'Gary P. Kaplan M.D., Ph.D. is a neurologist, neuroscientist and educator, currently serving as the Director of Clinical Neurophysiology at North Shore University Hospital, and Clinical Associate Professor of Neurology at New York University School of Medicine. He has lectured extensively on Maharishi's Vedic Approach to Health and on Veda in human physiology. Prior to his appointment as Minister of Health Clinics in Maharishi's Global Country of World Peace, he served as the Executive Director for Perfect Health for the state of New York in Maharishi's Global Administration through Natural Law.'"

"'Dr. Kaplan received his bachelor of science degree in biology, with a special concentration in neurobiology and behavior, at Cornell University. He received his Ph.D. in neural science at Washington University and his M.D. at the University of Miami Ph.D. to M.D. program. He undertook post-graduate training in neurology at Yale University School of Medicine, where he also served as chief resident in neurology and clinical instructor. While an attending neurologist and director of the course in neuroscience at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, he received the Albert H. Douglas award from the Medical Society of the State of New York for outstanding achievements as a clinical teacher interested in promoting and improving medical education of physicians. Dr. Kaplan is the author of numerous articles in basic neuroscience research, clinical neurology, and Maharishi Vedic Approach to Health.'" Fladrif (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This link was in my prior post but may have been missed by some.It would appear that Kaplan is still a member of faculty at NYUSM. As a compromise and to create balance, I would suggest that we say that Kaplan is: [Minister of Health Clinics for Maharishi's GCWP and Associate Professor at NYUSM.]  Would that work for everyone?--<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Kbob</b> •  Talk  • 21:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on what we're going to use Kaplan for, that's probably as succinct and comprehensive as possible. So, what are we going to say about MVVT based on Kaplan?   Will Beback    talk    22:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that will work. Which then leads to Will's question of how he is proposed to be used as a source, and for what. I question whether he qualifies as a "secondary source" as sugested by TG because I do not think he qualifies as a "third party, independent source", which is "vital" per Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles). But, let's see specifically what is proposed. Fladrif (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a significant part of the Kaplan chapter is inaccessible in Google, and the Oken book is not widely held by libraries. However it does seem to contain an overview of all of MVAH. If so, and if it's a reliable source, then we should rethink how we've structured the article. For example, we hardly mention doshas, which appear to be an important element of MVAH.   Will Beback    talk    23:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Primary Sources
As in other TM related articles this article has been stripped of content that is an integral part of the topic of the article. There is research on MVAH. That research needs to included in the article as part pf the information on the topic. This is not evidence based content. We are not using the content in an article about treatments for cancer, for example, in which case secondary sources and reviews would be a necessity. Nor are we using the studies to make claims beyond the claims made by the researchers. Its important to discriminate between articles in which edits are supported by primary sources and those that are used to establish heath information, and a topic that includes in its information studies on the topic of the article. WP:MEDRS does not forbid primary sources, but gives information on where and how and if they can be used. The issue to consider is context. Is the information part of the information on the topic of the article it is in. If it is, then it must be included. If the studies are being used in a larger context such as treatment, then mainstream view and weight must be considered as to whether the studies have any place at all. We are misreading WP:MEDRS and bypassing WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS. If the article is not notable per Wikipedia it should be deleted, but if it is notable then the article must contain the integral and pertinent information on the subject it is describing. I realize I am pretty much alone in this view so am not reverting the massive deletion of today.(olive (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC))
 * The deleted material cited primary sources to make claims about the efficacy of various MVAH products and practices as treatments for extremely serious medical conditions, including cancer.  We are absolutely bound by WP:MEDRS to not use primary sources for that purpose. WP:V is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for inclusion of material in an article. It trumps no other policy. In the medical field MEDRS trumps RS. Fladrif (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No. I disagree. The studies must be included on their owen terms and the wording must indicate with out making claims, that they are part of the body of information. If there is a problem with the wording then the wording can be changed. The solution is not to delete content. WP:MEDRS is an addition to WP:RS and must not be considered exclusive of the RS guideline, and I'm afraid verifiablity has all but been ignored.  As is the article is incomplete and makes no sense. (olive (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC))


 * Please see my comments at the end of the previous section. It is important to tell the whole truth. David Spector 22:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, not to split hares... play on words intended...but Wikipedia is about verifiable information used  to create an accurate description of how the topic of the article is viewed in the main stream literature/sources. Truth is another concern that Wikipedia does not concern itself with, possibly because, despite its implication of the ultimate, truth is a highly subjective concept. (olive (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC))
 * We could say something about the state of research on MAV - perhaps that it is in early stages of development, no conclusive effects established, but early indication are...blah, blah. Could that work? --BwB (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about the studies again? If this is still in dispute let's go back to the folks at WP:MEDRS and aske for further input.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you object to civil editor discussion on a deletion of this size?(olive (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I object to constantly rehashing the same discussion which has already been settled. See WP:TE. There's really no question that WP:MEDRS applies to a topic which has "health" in the title and which proposes treatments for ailments. If the studies are not compliant with WP:MEDRS then they should be removed. If they are then they may be used. Any other discussion is irrelevant. The most that we can legitimately say about non-compliant sources is that they exist, but we should avoid discussing their contents.   Will Beback    talk    22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I am not editing, I'm not sure why you would link to tendentious editing. Will, you do not have the right to criticize another editor for discussing a topic that is of concern. If you don't want to be part of the discussion then please don't involve yourself. But you don't control or own the the articles or the editors, and yes, this subject matter is an area of concern. There are discussions in other areas of Wikipedia concerning how to interpret policies, and there is no reason why here as well, such discussion cannot be carried on. You've make wildly inaccurate assumptions concerning me and my positions, and inaccurately characterized what I have done on Wikipedia. If you want me banned or blocked as your constant and consistent comments indicate I'm sure you will know just how to approach that situation, but in the meantime, I am an editor in good standing with out blocks or banns or admonishments, so your comments to me here are out of place and out of line.(olive (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't understand what you mean by "I am not editing" - isn't this discussion related to proposed or past edits? If it isn't then it's off-topic. I'll repeat what I said at first: If this is about the studies again then let's get outside input. Is that a problem?   Will Beback    talk    23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The feedback that we've gotten is that we need secondary sources. I've added a number to the TM article. Some of those could be included here. In addition, here's a secondary source we could use that's recent and quite comprehensive regarding MVAH.. TimidGuy (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This review mentions the research on Amrit Kalash that shows it helps control the side effects of chemotherapy. TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a randomized controlled trial with over 200 subjects on using Amrit Kalash to reduce toxicity of chemotherapy. MEDRS doesn't completely disallow individual studies. This would be a good one to use. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This review mentions the research on breast cancer cells. TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This book also discusses the Amrit research. TimidGuy (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This review published in a journal put out by the AMA mentions Amrit research on atherosclerosis. Nick H. Mashour, MD; George I. Lin, MD; William H. Frishman, MD, "Herbal Medicine for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease Clinical Considerations," Arch Intern Med. 1998;158:2225-2234. TimidGuy (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two issues here, and I want to clarify in particular what I was asking when I started this thread. One issue is the kind of source preferred and how policy supports certain kinds of sources. The other issue which is what I am asking about refers to  the context of information in reference to the topic of an article, and how, and if, that information itself is being added, or in this case deleted. As an aside, I in no way have much opinion on this research.
 * If there is a significant amount of research on MVAH, and significant is certainly open to interpretation, then that research is part of the information on the topic. Significant Information on a topic must be included, but not as a section on health benefits which I said above, but simply as part of the information on that topic.That section should summarize the studies,  both those that showed  negative, and positive results, with examples of studies for each kind of result. As well, the section should include how this research is being received/viewed in the mainstream. Nothing in the section should be worded to indicate we are providing health information. Right now, the approach being used on the TM related articles, if its primary remove it no mater its context, seems to be a highly superficial and to my mind incorrect way of dealing with content and information.
 * Since there was a fair amount of misunderstanding of what I was trying to say, clarification seemed appropriate. I, in no way as implied above, would edit the article to reflect my points. If that had been the case I would have reverted the deletion as well as asked for discussion This was a simple discussion on what I consider to be a legitimate way of dealing with the content and information pertinent to these articles.(olive (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
 * This argument is merely a variation on one TimidGuy (IIRC) floated recently on one of these talk pages - that the TM research should be included in the articles as "history", and not as providing scientific or medical conclusions. These arguments are simply efforts to bypass and ignore WP:MEDRS by attempting to recast the purpose for which the information is being offered. This rationale for ignoring WP:MEDRS is so facile that it doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry.Fladrif (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "These arguments are simply efforts to bypass and ignore WP:MEDRS by attempting to recast the purpose for which the information is being offered. This rationale for ignoring WP:MEDRS is so facile that it doesn't even rise to the level of sophistry" Sadly, you conflate your own opinions with the motives of others. This was a clarification of my points originally made as a request for mature, civil discussion, and the points reflect discussion in other places on Wikipedia where the same issues are under consideration. (olive (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC))
 * My opinion is that the arguments in favor in including material contrary to the requirements of WP:MEDRS are not meritorious and do not justify bypassing or ignoring those requirements.. I have neither stated nor implied anything whatsoever about what may motivate those editors advancing the argument. Your reaction is hardly consonant with your proclaimed intention to seek mature, civil discussion.Fladrif (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Olive's assertion that we can (or must) report these studies' findings without reporting their claims of medical effectiveness in the process. Perhaps it'd be useful to propose some text along those lines so we can see how that would work.   Will Beback    talk    21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many many secondary sources we can use. We can simply report what they say. I listed a few above that I was able to find in a short time. It would behoove a neutral editor who deletes research from this article to replace it with material from proper secondary sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're all in this together. Poorly sourced material that makes medical claims should be removed wherever found. Of the papers I see listed above, only one appears to be freely accessible, Shukla1 & Pal 2004. It seems to have only a single relevant sentence:
 * An Ayurvedic formulation, Maharishi Amrit Kalash, has proved to be effective in controlling the side-effects of chemotherapy (Kher, 1999).
 * Assuming this paper, published in the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, is reliable I don't see a problem with citing it.   Will Beback    talk    19:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, you know that sources don't have to be freely available in order to be included. All of the above and more can be legitimately added. TimidGuy (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't write material based only on abstracts. If we're going to use the papers then someone needs to be able to read them in their entirety.   Will Beback    talk    18:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we sure we want to include such obscure journals as the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention? That's really grasping for straws, isn't it?--Kala Bethere (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will, I don't understand your point. I've been collecting PDFs of the articles and generally put in material based on having the PDF in hand. TimidGuy (talk) 12:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, you didn't mention that. I only know what I read. ;)   Will Beback    talk    10:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)