Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 42

Wikipedia misinterprets scientific consensus
According to review article :


 * Recently, the American Heart Association recently published a scientific statement describing nonpharmacological means of lowering BP. The authors reviewed the efficacy of several approaches directed at reduction of anxiety, including meditation, relaxation, device-guided slow breathing, and biofeedback methods. Transcendental Meditation was found to modestly lower BP (class IIB recommendation, level of evidence B).

This seems to directly contradict Wikipedia's claims. I think editors have misinerpreted AHA's statement. -A1candidate (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed. Please read the definition of "class 2B"
 * See User:MastCell comments at lenght. We can discuss again.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Byrd and Brook's review article clearly disagrees with MastCell's unpublished comments. -A1candidate (talk) 22:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * RD Brook, being the same Robert Brook who was lead author of the AHA scientific statement in the first place, so his characterization of his own writing further clarifies what he meant it to say.Sparaig2 (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there is no set "definition" of "class 2B" to be found in the AHA statement. Instead, Table 1 provides guidelines for how to decide which Level of Evidence/Classification of Recommendation (LOE/COR) to use and guidelines for how the writing committee might word clarifications of the LOE/COR. In the case of a COR IIB, the treatment (TM) efficacy is "less well-estabilished" [than treatments receiving a COR of IIA or better]. Table 1 guidelines give three alternate wordings that the writing committee might use with a COR of IIB: 1) may/might be considered; 2) may/might be reasonable; 3) usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established. The writing committee chose to clarify TM's COR of IIB with the phrase "may be considered" and wikipedia editors chose to add the phrase "usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established" in quotes, as though the writing committee actually used those words. When I pointed this out to Robert Brook, lead author, he responded "they did not use our words..." Sparaig2 (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are joking right? Page three of the AHA statement  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said: "Table 1 provides guidelines for how to decide which Level of Evidence/Classification of Recommendation (LOE/COR) to use and guidelines for how the writing committee might word clarifications of the LOE/COR." In the case of a COR of IIB, the guidelines say that it is "less well established" [than higher CORs]. Table 1 provides 3 different suggested phrases that COULD be used with a COR of IIb. The writing committee chose to use "May be considered [in clinical practice.]" They did NOT choose "usefulness/effectiveness is unknown/unclear/uncertain or not well established." Table 1 is copied from Table 5. COR/LOE Table of the Methodology Manual and Policies From the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines and is "always Table 1 in an ACCF/AHA guideline." Authors are to be concise in their wording. The authors of  the AHA alternate treatments for hypertension scientific statement chose to use a specific set of words. They did NOT choose to use a alternate set of words, and wikipedia editors who are putting quotes around the alternate wording as though they clarify things are actually rewriting the AHA statement. "They did not use our words..." according to Robert Brook, lead author of the AHA statement. "I thought that section was fairly clear" according to Robert Brook. Sparaig2 (talk) 09:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest a resource for transcendental meditation - a charity website http://www.meditationtrust.com It has an extensive resource section and free ebook explaining what TM is and the benefits, (including scientific references) about TM, written by Dr Gemma Beckley. Could this be added to the page (under the further reading section)? SllSuk (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like spam to me so no. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Although the site has information it is also selling a product - spam - so we don't consider such a reference the best for Wikipedia. Good information unfortunately does not necessarily exclude selling  products. When a site is advertising/selling verifying the information can be difficult. Best to go to other sources of which there are many. Best wishes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC))

Research accepted widely
As long as the research appears on the US government website, I don't think there is a valid reason to dismiss it, in that the US government is quoted as a credible source on many Wikipedia pages and goes largely unchallenged. This points to an extreme bias against TM that Wikipedia should amend.


 * I don't get what you're talking about. Your recent additions don't appear to have any refs to United States Government sites. But if I missed it, at any rate, there's no magical "gotcha" rule here such that if such-and-such appears on such-and-such site we have to accept it. If the FDA or NASA or the the EPA or whomever says "here's such-and-such study, and we think it shows such-and-such", that's a good beginning (it still depends on the methodology of the study and so forth, and who did it and who reviewed are factors also; but an arm of the United States Goverment is, depending on which arm and what the circumstances are, a beginning, yes.


 * As to your material, I've redacted on the grounds that it's silly. Regardless of degrees or whatever, the Maharishi has not approached any of this from the standpoint of physical sciences. He didn't do some experiments in a cloud chamber and conclude "hey whattya know, there seems to be kind of inexplicable field shown here" or whatever. You yourself know this perfectly well. So cut it out. Herostratus (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not true, the theoretical connection to physics is clearly stated and widely broadcast. Wether you accept the theory or not is another matter, but stifling an explanation of the theory is manipulation of the public commons for your own agenda. It is published in several journals, including the International Journal of Neuroscience, and others, and if you use the "needs citation" button I will put them in, but those references to published research have all been deleted by people like you in the past. Your extreme prejudice should be stopped by Wikipedia with a rational person to replace you.

Content
Have removed "A 2007 systematic review found that transcendental meditation was associated with a significant reduction in blood pressure. " as we have a better source on the topic. Specifically the 2013 statement by the AHA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

2008 meta-analysis
I added this meta-analysis from 2008 which states that "The regular practice of Transcendental Meditation may have the potential to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure by ∼4.7 and 3.2 mm Hg, respectively. These are clinically meaningful changes." A1candidate, however, removed it, saying it fails WP:MEDDATE. In the opinion of other editors, would it be appropriate to include it as a source? Everymorning  talk  21:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No as there are better sources on that. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The source was removed because it fails WP:MEDDATE and we have newer reviews on the same topic. User:Everymorning, I've realised that the 2008 review had been cited by AHA in their 2013 review, so we could keep the statement but use the AHA's 2013 review as a source.  A1candidate  02:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Last statement on the AHA Statement
I noticed the revert to MastCell's version, which I guess is normally an excellent idea... I'm not really interested in a big fight over this, so I'm just going to say what I think is wrong with the treatment of the AHA statement, and since I doubt you trust me to be neutral, please just ask any good editor that you trust to consider this from a basic sourcing perspective:
 * We quote the authors from their conclusion and then from an included figure in the introduction, as if these were the words of the authors themselves.
 * We use the word "meaning" as if these are definitions of Class IIb, when they are actually writing recommendations. Sparaig2 was on about this for a long time, and even received a response from the lead author saying we misrepresent them, but you really don't need to ask the authors about this. It is plain from just looking at original AHA statement that the committee could have used wordings from any of the three recommended formulations to write their conclusion, and they chose to use only the first.

At the very least, please acknowledge that these are not definitions of class IIB. These are "suggested phrases for writing a recommendation". If we must include the third one, although the authors themselves did not use it in the body of the article, we should at least not imply that the authors did write this. Vesal (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * User:MastCell added this text. Lets allow him to comment. It has been in the article a long time. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do see your point, although I don't think we're "misrepresenting" the paper by describing the definition of Class IIB evidence. I guess I don't feel that strongly. If you think it's better to omit the Class IIB definition and just go with the "may be considered" wording, I can live with that. I'm actually much more concerned that we're misrepresenting the AHA position more globally. There seems to be an effort to make it sound like the AHA endorsed TM on some level. In fact, the paper touches on many different alternative measures to lower BP. And TM is not anywhere near the top of the list in their recommendations. They write:
 * So let's be clear: the AHA recommends that if you're going to use an alternative approach, then you should use aerobic or resistance exercise. If that doesn't work, then the next step would be to try device-guided breathing or isometric handgrip exercises. They are very clear that these are the best alternative interventions, because they have the best evidence. Then, if these don't work, you could consider less well-supported or less practical approaches like TM. We don't reflect these conclusions at all in our article. We basically make it sound like the AHA endorses TM as an effective treatment for hypertension. What they are actually saying is much less promotional and more nuanced&mdash;namely, that among alternative approaches to hypertension, there are much better options than TM, although TM is not necessarily worthless. I understand how we've gotten here&mdash;after all, TM is a proprietary product sold by a massive organization with a well-funded PR and advertising arm, whereas exercise is just... exercise. No one is flocking to Wikipedia to sell it. But still, if we're going to use the AHA paper then I think it's fair to place TM in the context in which it appears in the paper. I'll take a shot at it. MastCell Talk 01:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We should say "TM has been found to lower BP (AHA) but its effect on preventing CVD remains unclear (Cochrane)". - A1candidate  01:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm not sure that is accurate&mdash;it overstates the strength of the AHA's recommendation. MastCell Talk 01:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * AHA authors explained their recommendation in review article : "Transcendental Meditation was found to modestly lower BP (class IIB recommendation, level of evidence B)." They did not state that the evidence is unclear or unknown. - A1candidate  02:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes happy with those changes. It places there recommendations in context. Definition of classIIB level B is "recommendation's usefulness/efficacy less well established" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes happy with those changes. It places there recommendations in context. Definition of classIIB level B is "recommendation's usefulness/efficacy less well established" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict
 * I have no problem with the changes Doc James references above which add  relatively obvious context.  Exercise for example, is an obvious first line of response to cardiovascular issues first, because it is immediate to human beings and movement and second because of the long history of exercise/ movement and research. However, there would never be a reason to use a review that references exercise in a TM article unless that review also could be used to reference TM  which this review does?  Sounds  as if there is criticism for not having more content on exercise.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC))
 * The next step would be to delete "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health" and add "It is unclear of TM has any effect on preventing diseases". - A1candidate  02:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, MastCell, I believe this is now accurate and a much better representation of the source and required background context. This point about exercise actually couldn't be made often enough, and not just here. It is good to know that meditation, at least in the mindfulness case, is superior to behavioral placebos, but nowadays you end up believing that if I you have say 30 minutes after work to take care of yourself, it would be better to sit on a cushion than to go out for a gentle run. There is no evidence that any meditation therapy is superior to physical exercise. Talking about next steps, I'd much rather see a similar level of MEDRS attention being brought to other health claims made by psychologists, such as optimism, than for the lead of this article to be watered down. Maybe a few older reviews could be removed, or we may state that the quality of trials have improved, based on more recent reviews, but the overall conclusion essentially remains the same. Vesal (talk) 08:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hah! If you want to take on the positive-psychology articles, I'm game. I did some work on critical positivity ratio, which is one of the classic Emperor's-new-clothes moments which seem all too common in that field. Short of getting James Coyne to edit Wikipedia, though, it will be an uphill slog. Probably a discussion for another venue, of course. MastCell Talk 02:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Removed:

- Fails WP:MEDDATE

- This Cochrane review does not support what is being written. The study analyzed TM with two other relaxation techniques. The authors found that "There was no differential effect between the 3 treatments in reducing anxiety" and this is being used to make the claim that it's is not possible to say if TM has any effects on health

- Fails WP:MEDDATE

ACS statement - Fails WP:MEDDATE

All statements dealing with meditation in general belong there, not here.

"I hate Maharishi University of Management" is not a valid argument for removing WP:MEDRS sources.

-A1candidate (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:MEDDATE is not to be applied this rigidly. Much discussion has gone into the current wording. Cochrane review states "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc James Cochrane review is only for anxiety disorders, not for all ailments. WP:MEDDATE applies because we have newer sources. -A1candidate (talk) 00:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and the high quality newer sources also say the same thing. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * TM lowers BP per AHA -A1candidate (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The evidence is unclear. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not AHA's position. The evidence is clear -A1candidate (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We could have another RfC to gather wider input. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Cochrane review is only for anxiety disorders, not for all diseases in general. -A1candidate (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And this one on CVD and this one this one for well being   Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Lowering BP is not the same as preventing CVD. -A1candidate (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But the whole point of lowering BP is to prevent cardiovascular disease. If a treatment lowers BP but does not prevent cardiovascular disease, then it's not really much good, is it? The point isn't to treat a number on the sphygmomanometer, but to prevent actual disease. MastCell Talk 01:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See surrogate endpoint. High BP affects other diseases including kidney failure. -A1candidate (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with surrogate endpoints. Hypertensive renal disease is a form of cardiovascular disease, so I'm not sure what your point is. MastCell Talk 01:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Chronic kidney disease is not a form of cardiovascular disease. Lowering BP helps patients with CKD. - A1candidate  01:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

This is what the AHA report says "Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B), other meditation techniques (Class III, Level of Evidence C), yoga (Class III, Level of Evidence C), other relaxation therapies (Class III, Level of Evidence B), and biofeedback approaches (Class IIB, Level of Evidence B) generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy." And "The writing group conferred to TM a Class IIB, Level of Evidence B recommendation in regard to BP-lowering efficacy." which means "recommendation's usefulness/efficacy less well established. Greater conflicting evidence from single randomized trial or nonrandomized studies" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Modest" applies to therapies with Level of Evidence B (e.g. TM). "No consistent evidence" applies to therapies with Level of Evidence C (e.g. all other meditation techniques ) -A1candidate (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


 * That it is not possible to say if TM has an effect on health is a fair summary of the highest-quality reviews. The AHA statement is a notable outlier though. The authors of the 2014 AHRQ review did say in their answers to comments that a systematic review considering biological markers of stress is needed. It is possible that mantra meditation works more directly on the body than the mind. This would resolve the inconsistency between some of these findings; however, a hypothesis like this must be directly tested, not just invoked as an ad-hoc explanation. At the moment, looking at all the highest-quality sources together, the evidence is unclear and contradictory. On the other hand, here is where I do agree with you: some of these older sources make statements about the poor quality of meditation research in general, not just TM research. Recent reviews are not as critical of methodology as the older ones. You might find support for updating some of these statements about the poor quality of research. Vesal (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding quality, the 2014 AHRQ review looked at 7 studies on TM. Three had low risk for bias, 2 had medium risk, and 2 had high risk. That means that only 2 of the 7 studies could be considered poor quality. Also, in cardio section of the 2007 AHRQ review, the two highest quality studies of the 27 that were included were on TM.(p. 108) Schneider 1995 and Schneider 2005 were deemed high quality. The 2006 Cochrane review is being used to support the statement about quality, but the one study that met their inclusion criteria was said to be "moderate" quality. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 2006 Cochrane review concludes "The small number of studies included in this review do not permit any conclusions to be drawn on the effectiveness of meditation therapy for anxiety disorders."
 * This supports this part of the sentence "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The 2014 Cochrane review found "The included trials were small, short term (three months) and at risk of bias." and "Due to the limited evidence to date, we could draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. There was considerable heterogeneity between trials and the included studies were small, short term and at overall serious risk of bias." Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Those sources are for anxiety disorders and CVD only, not for all conditions. - A1candidate  02:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doc James. I was referring to the 2014 AHRQ review. You quoted the 2014 Cochrane review. The TM article says that the 2014 AHRQ review found that the quality of TM research was poor. However, the review found that 3 were high quality, 2 were medium quality, and 2 were low quality. (By the way, the 2014 Cochrane review inexplicably excluded all of the NIH-funded research on TM. These are the strongest studies on TM and have been characterized as being high quality by AHRQ. These studies used an attention control, and the review explicitly states their intention to include studies that use an attention control.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This article violates scientific consensus
According to review article, "The available evidence supports several approaches including Transcendental Meditation" in managing high blood pressure. - A1candidate  15:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Blood pressure is a surrogate marker and we discuss it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Both surrogate markers and physiological effects need to be mentioned. - A1candidate  15:16, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which we do. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Lede section alleges that "It is not possible to say if it has any effect on health". So a change in BP is not a physiological health effect? - A1candidate  15:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a surrogate marker. Here is a good read . Health effects are less heart attacks, less strokes, longer life, less diabetes. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is also a physiological effect and is relevant from a physiological point of study. Less heart attacks and less strokes are health outcomes. - A1candidate  15:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why we can't discuss physiological effects as well, as long as we have a source for it. Wikipedia shouldn't be about censoring good information. When readers find good information elsewhere but find that it's lacking on Wikipedia, they go elsewhere and Wikipedia becomes further discredited in their mind. Jimmy Wales mentioned this in respect to this very article on his talk page recently. LesVegas (talk) 20:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

We state "A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association said: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP [blood pressure]" and that TM could be considered as a treatment for hypertension, although other interventions such as exercise and device-guided breathing were felt to be more effective and better supported by clinical evidence." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:29, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This contradicts the lede, which claims "It is not possible to say if it has any effect on health". The lede violates AHA consensus. - A1candidate  13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize the conclusions of all high-quality reviews. It must also take into account the conclusion of the Cochrane review on cardiovascular disease (overall serious risk of bias) and the AHRQ review on psychological health. Maybe a compromise is possible, but you cannot push this source above all others. Vesal (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have always been in favor of using the Cochrane reviews, but does not support the text in the lede. - A1candidate  13:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead image
Could someone please adjust the caption to the lead image (preferably with sources) to clarify what it depicts and/or how it relates to TM? The current version is vague enough that I think the image is more likely to be confusing than helpful. The image description calls it Illustration of the mental process called "transcendence", which is slightly more informative, but that seems be in tension with the current text which just calls it a logo. Thanks,  Sunrise    (talk)  04:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a logo, its the personal work of an anonymous French editor. The French website for TM has a round blue circle with a gold tree as the logo. This round blue circle with the gold tree is the same logo that appears on multiple TM web sites for various other countries as well. None of the sites I checked use the image currently displayed in the article. The only place this image appears on the web is on this WP page. Therefore the current image appears to be fraudulent and I've removed it. -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 19:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * These people use it Thus restored.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Jmh649, I'm sorry but you are mistaken. The logo on the page you've cited and the one you've placed in the article are completely different. You must have been in a hurry because anyone can see they are not the same. Furthermore, as I mentioned in my comment above the French editor who uploaded this image says in the images file that it is his/her own work. We cannot make up our own version of a logo and then claim it is the official logo of a multinational non-profit. Don't you agree? User:Sunrise, you were the one who originally brought up this concern. What are your thoughts on this?-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No thoughts really. :-) I was just reading the article and the caption seemed unclear to me, so I thought I would leave a note here for other editors to consider.  Sunrise    (talk)  08:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is just TM like. I guess we can upload the other logo and use it under fair use. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing it. If you would like to upload the correct logo, under fair use, and place it in the article as you've described. I would have no objections. Thanks for your help. Best, -- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Studies by Michaels and Pagano
I see that these studies have been added to the research section of the article. When this addition was first proposed in 2013, I responded to the suggestion by outlining a number of issues. These issues include:
 * The study by Michaels wasn't an attempt to replicate, since Wallace didn't look at biochemical markers.
 * There are perhaps a dozen studies of biochemical markers, many from the lab of Archie Wilson at UC Irvine, a number of which explicitly state their conclusion differs from Michaels.
 * In a 1983 book chapter, Pagano looked at his 1976 study in the context of subsequent studies and stated that the results in his 1976 study were "atypical."
 * Michaels published a study in 1979 that again found similarities between TM and relaxation but also found that TM meditators responded differently to acute stress: "The data do not support the hypothesis that TM induces a unique state characterized by decreased sympathetic activity or release from stress, but do suggest that meditators may be less responsive to an acute stress."
 * We should be using research reviews rather than individual studies, per WP:MEDRS.
 * A comprehensive review of the literature on TM and EEG that looks at meditation and sleep and that also touches on biochemical markers can be found here. It also briefly touches on biochemical markers. EMP (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a longer and more contextualized quote for the 1983 book chapter in which Pagano dismissed his prior results as "atypical"? It's not that I don't trust you personally, but we've certainly had issues in this topic area in general with the misrepresentation of medical sources. I will try to get ahold of the book myself to verify it, but even the most thoroughly stocked university medical library doesn't typically carry low-profile textbooks from 1983. I'm impressed you have access to it - if you're able to email me a page scan then that would be very helpful. MastCell Talk 22:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here’s a longer quotation that gives a fuller context: “The amount of Stage 1, 2, 3, and 4 EEG activity that occurs during TM obviously depends on many factors such as how tired the meditator is at the time of meditation, how conducive the environment is to sleep, and time of day when meditating. To date, the research shows the following. Younger, Adriance, and Berger (1975) have reported that advanced meditators spent 41% of their meditations in Sleep Stages 1 and 2. On the other hand, Hebert and Lehmann (1977) reported only 10% Stage 1, and no Stage 2, 3, or 4 activity. In a recent study (Warrenburg, Pagano, Woods, & Hlastala, 1980), we found long-term TM meditators showed 21% Stage 1, only 1.6% Stage 2, and no Stage 3 and 4 activity. Based on these results, the rather high incidence of Stage 3 and 4 activity reported in our initial experiment seems atypical. From a Sleep Stage analysis it seems most accurate to summarize the current state of research as indicating that there are many states of consciousness that occur during TM, the most common EEG stages being Stage W, 1 and 2, respectively. Several additional investigators of TM and other meditation techniques have also emphasized the unusual predominance of "nondescending theta" states, traditionally called Stage 1 sleep, or drowsiness, that occur during meditation (Elson, Hauri, & Cunis, 1977; Fenwick, Donaldson, Gillis, Bushman, Fenton, Perry, Tilsey, & Serafinowicz, 1977; Tebecis, 1975).” EMP (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are we using a bunch of 1970s and 1980s studies? We should be using recent secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Because these studies appear to be notable. - A1candidate  23:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * @: The most problematic text here is the following: “A second 1976 study of five subjects found that TM practitioners spent much of their meditation time napping rather than in the unique "wakeful hypometabolic state" described by Wallace.[81]“ This is clearly a low quality finding (n=5) and acknowledged later by its author to be atypical. For these reasons, and in the light of Doc James’ comment on the use of old primary studies, would you object to its removal? EMP (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the only content that satisfies WP:MEDRS is the AHA and Cochrane reviews. All other papers in the health effects section should either be removed or, if notable, moved to the history section. - A1candidate  19:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * EMP, the Wallace study looked at oxygen consumption in nine subjects and is apparently viewed as a foundational piece of research by the TM movement. The follow-up study looked at five patients and you dismiss it as "clearly a low quality finding", solely on the basis of sample size. I'm not aware of any categorical difference in scientific value between studies where n=5 and those where n=9. I also think you're misrepresenting the "atypical" comment to imply that the negative findings should be disregarded. Your more complete quote indicates that the authors continue to believe that TM is physiologically consistent with drowsiness or sleep, although in perhaps in a different distribution of sleep stages than their initial paper reported. MastCell Talk 17:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In the paragraph following the one I have quoted, Pagano says that Stage 1 in TM is different from drowsiness: "Since the EEG is a relatively crude measure, it is possible that when the subject manifests Stage 1 or 2 activity during meditation, he or she is not in the same central nervous system (CNS) states as when these stages are identified during ordinary sleep. It is a well-known phenomenon that a tone or stimulus presented during "ordinary" Stage 1 EEG often elicits a short burst of alpha activity (the alpha arousal response), and that during Stage 2 it elicits a K-complex. We reasoned that if the states of meditation and napping are, in fact, different even if the sleepstage classifications were identical, the EEG response to tone probe stimuli might distinguish such a difference. In order to test this possibility we collected tone-response data that were not reported in our original Science article. A 45-db, 600-Hz tone of 0.5-sec duration was presented during each of the meditation and nap sessions, using a randomized interstimulus interval of 1 ± .25 minutes. The results of the response rate to tone presentations (percentage of probes eliciting an alpha arousal or a K-complex) indicated no significant difference between napping and meditation when subjects exhibited Stage 2 EEG sleep (see Table 2). However, there was a significant difference (p .02) between napping and meditation during Stage 1, with subjects responding more often during napping. These results suggest that when the TM meditator is in Stage 2 sleep during meditation, this probably reflects a normal sleep state. On the other hand, when Stage 1 activity is present during meditation, the CNS state appears to be other than that during ordinary drowsiness. Schuman (1980) reviews research suggesting that Stage 1 EEG during meditation may reflect a "freezing of the hypnagogic process (i.e., the physiological/phenomenological transition state between waking and sleeping)." EMP (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm at a disadvantage here, since you're quoting from an obscure 1983 textbook which I have no way to access. This textbook appears to have ceased publication 30 years ago, in 1986, and even then you're citing an older edition. While I have access to one of the most extensive academic and medical library systems in the world, this book is not in the catalog, which leaves me all the more impressed that you have it at your fingertips to quote, as needed, to rebut inconvenient findings. That said, given the history of questionable source use in this topic area, I'm uncomfortable citing an outdated editing of an extremely outdated and obscure textbook that no unaffiliated editor is in a position to verify. I don't doubt the accuracy of the quotes you've provided, but I do have concerns about both the use of an old edition and the selective provision of context. MastCell Talk 17:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that 44 copies of the book are available on Amazon. And I've mentioned a couple of times a 2006 research review that covers all of the studies discussed in the book plus over a dozen more recent ones. EMP (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you removed your contention that this book is widely carried by libraries, because I was unable to reproduce it. I spoke to my friendly neighborhood medical librarian, who indicated that while the book has never been carried at my institution, it would be possible to obtain the most recent 4th edition (from 1986) through inter-library loan. I mentioned that I was interested in a previous edition, the 3rd edition, and he asked: "Why would you want an old edition, when the book hasn't even been published since 1986?" Good question. It's my perspective that there is a library of canned citations which are used by the TM movement to rebut common concerns about the literature supporting its product, because I don't believe that someone using normal approaches to the medical literature would immediately turn up this citation and present it to "rebut" the Science papers. Regardless, though, I am not comfortable using this source because I don't think it can reasonably be verified by independent observers, even those (like me) with substantial institutional resources. MastCell Talk 17:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or maybe you should just stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS on every editor, and actually assume good faith once in a while. - A1candidate  17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, thanks for the feedback. My underlying point is that we should not use this source, since its content cannot reasonably be verified by an independent observer. MastCell Talk 18:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, I wasn't suggesting we use the book. I was suggesting, for a third time, that we use the 2006 review.


 * My initial WorldCat search for the book showed that it is available in 400+ libraries, but on double-checking found that figure only applies to all editions of the book, from 1976 to 1986 . I removed the figure very shortly after posting on this talk page, before any discussion took place. A subsequent search shows that ten US university libraries have the 1983 edition, so one could certainly verify content.


 * However, this is beside the main point—that the 2006 review is a better source. EMP (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why are research and review findings presented out of chronological order?
Really. The topic heading says it all. There's a progression (in my mind) of better-done research with more positive reviews, and yet the section on health benefits ends with older comments that aren't specific to TM anyway. That smacks of editorial bias in my little mind. Sparaig2 (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

More information on the Maharishi Effect
No citations:
 * Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, in press. (page 43)
 * 1974 Garland Landrith III and Candace Borland - found eleven cities in which more than one percent of the population had begun the basic Transcendental Meditation technique. (page 44).
 * Dr. Charles Alexander, TM program extended the life span of elderly people. Higher Stages of Adult Development (page 51, first mention;).
 * Dr. Orme-Johnson (page 53).
 * Journal of Conflict Resolution (page 60). Dr. Bruce Russett, editor at the time (page 61).
 * Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, in press (page 68).
 * Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, in press. (page 72).
 * Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, Va. 1990. (page 87).

Detractors:
 * Wikipedia article:

"...has been shown to lack a causal basis..."
 * Fales, Evan; Markovsky, Barry (1997). "Evaluating Heterodox Theories". Social Forces 76 (2): 511–525. doi:10.2307/2580722. JSTOR 2580722.

"The evidence was said to result from cherry-picked data"
 * Schrodt, Phillip A. (1990). "A methodological critique of a test of the Maharishi technology of the unified field". Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (4): 745–755. doi:10.1177/0022002790034004008. JSTOR 174187.

"...and the credulity of believers."
 * Epstein, Edward (December 29, 1995). "Politics and Transcendental Meditation". San Francisco Chronicle.

Books:
 * The Maharishi effect: Creating world peace through the synthesis of modern science and ancient Vedic science: the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field Paperback – 1985
 * The Maharishi Effect: A Revolution Through Meditation Paperback – May, 1986
 * Google books.

130.14.254.24 (talk) 15:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Extremely prejudiced editor
Maharishi Effect theory deleted -- The theory is proposed by Maharishi, who has a degree in physics, and by other widely published physicists. It is rationally based on theories of physics, and it is un-ethical to deliberately hide the proposal from the public, even if you don't agree with it, but the extremist editors here consistently try to stifle the fact that the theory is based on a rational understanding of physics, and instead call it 'paranormal'. It is not paranormal, there are fields (or rather, oceans) at the basis of existence that every credible physicist recognizes. Research has been published in credible peer-reviewed journals in which this field-effect theory has been proposed. The editors here are constantly trying to mis-inform the public about these theories, and respond with insults and inappropriate deletions on a regular basis. This extreme prejudice is putting Wikipedia into complete dis-repute, and calls into question the value of this encyclopedia, which is now being used to promote an extremist and prejudiced agenda, which is largely just personal opinion. The fact that it was all taken out because one sentence, mentioning Maharishi's qualifications in physics, shows an extreme and aggressive prejudice and propaganda by the editors, and this person should be taken to task by Wikipedia. This type of extremism has no place on Wikipedia. Everything I could was referenced to credible sources. You cannot delete the whole thing. You can only put a mark where something needs to be referenced, and I will put the reference in there. Please re-insert the text, and put in 'needs citation' on sentences that need them, If any sentences are not backed up with credible sources I will delete the sentence, but please use "needs citation" instead of vandalizing the whole paragraph. Please state which specific parts need citations. Please don't tell me the fact that Maharishi has a degree in physics is not relevant when it is necessary to point such facts out in what is clearly a theory based on the findings of modern physics, especially when the editors sole goal is to mis-inform the public on what the theory is. The reason that they do not want the public to read about this theory, is that it is a completely rational theory. See my explanation below that was deleted. You are making a sham of Wikipedia and mis-informing the public about the theory and its roots. This below is not perfect, but completely vandalizing every part of it by deleting it all is unacceptable. Use the 'needs citation' method only.

Here is my insert below, that was deleted:

The theory: Abstract fields that most physicists believe are fundamental to existence, are the basis of the theory of the Maharishi Effect. The theory being that the mind, brain, and body, are not separate from these transcendental foundational fields, of which physical matter is widely accepted to be an epiphenomenon. The notion is that there are effects similar to those seen in superconductors, that can be created in the abstract underlying fields, particularly at the level of the Unified Field of physics, and near or below Planck-scale quantum levels. The interaction of the human brain and the quantum fields is a theory held by a number of highly regarded physicists, such as Professor Emeritus of Oxford University, Sir Roger Penrose, and many other respected physicists have also suggested a link between human consciousness and the sub-plank-scales, coining the term "Quantum Consciousness" to refer to this non-classical interaction, in which human thought is inter-dependent with an unbounded quantum field. Thus the theory of the Maharishi Effect clearly associates with widely accepted theories of modern physics. The theory was developed by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, who gained a degree in physics in the 1940s (studying at the encouragement of his guru, the Shankara Charya of Jyotir Math - similar to a Pope figure-head for India), and with other widely published physicists around the world.


 * Some additional information on Maharishi's background in physics (From "The Sixth Beatle"):
 * BORN IN 1918, THE MAHARISHI MAHESH YOGI graduated with a physics degree from the University of Allahabad. Soon thereafter, he received the system of Transcendental Meditation® (TM®) from his “Guru Dev,” Swami Brahmanand Saraswati, who occupied the “northern seat” of yoga in India, as one of four yogic “popes” in the country. He practiced yoga for thirteen years under Guru Dev, until the latter’s death in 1953. The Maharishi (“Great Sage”) then traveled to London in 1959 to set up what was to become a branch of the International Meditation Society there, with the mission of spreading the teachings of TM.
 * http://www.strippingthegurus.com/stgsamplechapters/maharishi.html


 * Neuroscience325 (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Motion
The Arbitration Committee are proposing to combine the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area with those authorised in several similar areas. Details of the proposal are at Arbitration/Requests/Motions where your comments are invited. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz  Read! Talk! 21:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I followed this link but could not find any such proposal involving the Transcendental Meditation articles. Can you please give a more specific link, or else explain where to find this arbitration motion? David Spector (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

BIO 387 at Stanford University
Stanford University had on a course a few years back on Transcendental Meditation that included some of the most well-known advocates including John Hagelin and others. I don't know where exactly in the article this ought to go, but it seems relevant.


 * Hacking consciousness will investigate the nature of consciousness as a field of all possibilities, as the source not only of the human mind and our ability to experience, know, innovate and create, but also as the source of all structures and functions--from fine particles and DNA to galaxies, in parallel with the scientific notion of a unified field, superstring, or super symmetry at the foundation of time and space. Each lesson will cover a specific aspect of consciousness and will be led by a leading scientist or thinker, including Tony Nader MD Phd (MIT and Harvard trained neuroscientist and author), John Hagelin Phd (Harvard-trained, renowned quantum physicist), and Fred Travis, PhD (neuroscientist who will provide a live EEG demonstration). Because consciousness has been seen in many cultures as a gateway to directly cognizing the laws of nature, meditation has developed as a pivotal human technology for success in all areas of life. Optionally, students may learn a meditation technique of their choice and join a possible weekend retreat. Students are also welcome to attend an optional 20 minute group meditation at 4:05pm, immediately before each class.
 * https://undergrad.stanford.edu/programs/special-focus-programs/lifeworks/lifeworks-courses/lifeworks-affiliated-courses

Hacking Consciousness on iTunes, including a bio of each speaker:
 * 1) John Hagelin
 * 2) Tony Nader
 * 3) Jon Lipman
 * 4) Pam Peeke
 * 5) Fred Travis
 * https://itunes.apple.com/us/course/hacking-consciousness-consciousness/id919606163

Neuroscience325 (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Was it picked up by the press? We would need an independent source Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Since it is indexed out of Stanford's own website Bio 387: Hacking Consciousness, and available through Stanford's official youtube channel Hacking Consciousness Part 1: Consciousness a Quantum Physics Perspective, what citation is appropriate? My impression, by the way, is that Ray Dalio flexed his donation muscles and got the course created (the specific nod to him at the start of the first video supports this theory).Sparaig2 (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why so many?
Transcendental Meditation, History of Transcendental Meditation, Transcendental Meditation technique, Transcendental Meditation movement... are all these articles really necessary? There's a lot of content repeated here and there. In my opinion, this page could become a disambiguation, and its content(?) merged with History of TM or with TM technique. —capmo (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We often have overview articles with subarticles that go into greater detail. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:13, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, all those articles should be kept as detail is important. The one exception being the hundreds of published peer reviewed studies and MEDRS compliant reviews which have been the subject of hundreds of media reports. A subarticle with that kind of information was already deleted because, well.... it was just too much detail.-- — Keithbob</b> • Talk  • 18:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, things have gone too far in the direction of brevity. There's plenty of research on TM that shouldn't fall under medical research that is simply not included or even mentioned. E.G. Fred Travis' ongoing research on TM and higher states of consciousness.Sparaig2 (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please revisit TM research section
The TM research section was done away with and no mention has been made that TM research was the basis for hte modern study of meditation and spiritual practices. By only mentinoing health benefits, large segments of TM research have been simply ignored, especially research concernign enlightenment, samadhi and higher states of consciousness. See my list of such studies in the wikipedia entry on enlightenment for more info: Relatively extensive research on enlightenment ala TM-theorySparaig2 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Please revisit TM research section
The TM research section was done away with and no mention has been made that TM research was the basis for hte modern study of meditation and spiritual practices. By only mentinoing health benefits, large segments of TM research have been simply ignored, especially research concernign enlightenment, samadhi and higher states of consciousness. See my list of such studies in the wikipedia entry on enlightenment for more info: Relatively extensive research on enlightenment ala TM-theorySparaig2 (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly a joke to all those who know a little bit about the subject
Reading here is this page about TM that: "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research to date has been of poor quality" is just A JOKE in 2015.

And that "Most independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM exceeding those of relaxation and health education" FALSE AGAIN.

It is well known in 2015 that: "Research has shown that the practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM) generates significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and in a short period of time. More than 350 peer-reviewed studies, showing positive effects on mental and physical health, have been published in research journals." Use a treatment for PTSD that actually works

And this : "A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association said: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP [blood pressure]" and that TM could be considered as a treatment for hypertension, although other interventions such as exercise and device-guided breathing were felt to be more effective and better supported by clinical evidence" is clearly A VERY BIG (voluntary?) MISTAKE (it is not about TM alone, but about the global group of alternative approaches) The sentence is cut and taken out of the context.

The real conclusion is: "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation. Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time. ... Conclusion: TM is the only among the behavioral therapy that has proven its efficiency to lower BP and is recommended by AHA as adjuvant methods to help lower blood pressure."AHA Scientific Statement - Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure - A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association "Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation, other meditation techniques, yoga, other relaxation therapies, and biofeedback approaches generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy" (from the abstract) - "Only 2 trials (both of TM) were considered to be of high methodological quality" p. 4 - "TM may have played a role in preventing aging related BP (blood pressure) progression over half a decade. More long term follow-up research is required" p. 5 - "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time.)" p. 6]

And concerning Anxiety alone, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: Transcendental Meditation shows marked efficacy in treating anxiety disorders."Conclusion: Overall, TM practice is more effective than treatment as usual and most alternative treatments, with greatest effects observed in individuals with high anxiety"Effects of the Transcendental Meditation Technique on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials "Conclusion: Overall, TM practice is more effective than treatment as usual and most alternative treatments, with greatest effects observed in individuals with high anxiety".

And when there are such quality of research and evidences, you cannot say what is actually said here in this page without hardly harming the reputation of wikipedia itself. So please, don't fool the readers and save the honor of this Wikipedia project, please. I will make some necessary changes. All the best to All Jdontfight (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So, nobody answers, this is not questionable anyway, let's make the changes Jdontfight (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is clearly a joke to all those who know a little bit about the subject
Reading here is this page about TM that: "It is currently not possible to say whether meditation has any effect on health, as the research to date has been of poor quality" is just A JOKE in 2015.

And that "Most independent systematic reviews have not found health benefits for TM exceeding those of relaxation and health education" FALSE AGAIN.

It is well known in 2015 that: "Research has shown that the practice of Transcendental Meditation (TM) generates significant reductions in PTSD symptoms and in a short period of time. More than 350 peer-reviewed studies, showing positive effects on mental and physical health, have been published in research journals." Use a treatment for PTSD that actually works

And this : "A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association said: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP [blood pressure]" and that TM could be considered as a treatment for hypertension, although other interventions such as exercise and device-guided breathing were felt to be more effective and better supported by clinical evidence" is clearly A VERY BIG (voluntary?) MISTAKE (it is not about TM alone, but about the global group of alternative approaches) The sentence is cut and taken out of the context.

The real conclusion is: "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation. Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time. ... Conclusion: TM is the only among the behavioral therapy that has proven its efficiency to lower BP and is recommended by AHA as adjuvant methods to help lower blood pressure."AHA Scientific Statement - Beyond Medications and Diet: Alternative Approaches to Lowering Blood Pressure - A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association "Among behavioral therapies, Transcendental Meditation, other meditation techniques, yoga, other relaxation therapies, and biofeedback approaches generally had modest, mixed, or no consistent evidence demonstrating their efficacy" (from the abstract) - "Only 2 trials (both of TM) were considered to be of high methodological quality" p. 4 - "TM may have played a role in preventing aging related BP (blood pressure) progression over half a decade. More long term follow-up research is required" p. 5 - "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time.)" p. 6]

And concerning Anxiety alone, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: Transcendental Meditation shows marked efficacy in treating anxiety disorders."Conclusion: Overall, TM practice is more effective than treatment as usual and most alternative treatments, with greatest effects observed in individuals with high anxiety"Effects of the Transcendental Meditation Technique on Trait Anxiety: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials "Conclusion: Overall, TM practice is more effective than treatment as usual and most alternative treatments, with greatest effects observed in individuals with high anxiety".

And when there are such quality of research and evidences, you cannot say what is actually said here in this page without hardly harming the reputation of wikipedia itself. So please, don't fool the readers and save the honor of this Wikipedia project, please. I will make some necessary changes. All the best to All Jdontfight (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * So, nobody answers, this is not questionable anyway, let's make the changes Jdontfight (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Conclusion of 2015 systematic review
From the conclusion in the review: "In conclusion, TM may effectively decrease BP compared with a control group" and "However, these results need to be confirmed by more trials with improved study designs, including a focus on BP variability and ambulatory BP in the future". There is an entire paragraph discussing possible biases as well. Yobol (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What an odd paper. The authors seem to believe that subgroup analyses add "rigor", when in fact they are exploratory by nature and notoriously prone to false-positives, data-dredging, and p-hacking. As the Cochrane Handbook mentions:
 * The authors nod perfunctorily at this reality by stating (correctly) that any findings from subgroup analysis must be confirmed in prospective randomized, controlled trials before being considered valid. I count at least 13 subgroups in the paper (the authors do not mention whether these subgroups were pre-specified or selected post hoc; the former is bad enough, but the latter would essentially suggest that they had unlimited researcher degrees of freedom to generate significant p values). Confidence intervals and specific p values are provided only sporadically; many p values are simply listed as "p<0.05", which precludes adjustment for multiple comparisons and also suggests a serious failure of rigorous peer review. The metric for bias is also odd: the authors dismiss this concern because 75% of the trials were funded by the NIH. Surely a more reasonable metric of bias would be whether these trials were conducted by the TM organization (which has an obvious financial stake in positive results), regardless of the funding source. Anyhow.... MastCell Talk 02:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One does not always use a p of 0.05. Typically you are allowed one primary endpoint. If you wish to have more than the p becomes progressively smaller (there are calculations for this). And this if of course required to prevent researchers from having 20 primary endpoints in the hope that by chance one will make 0.05. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
 * One does not always use a p of 0.05. Typically you are allowed one primary endpoint. If you wish to have more than the p becomes progressively smaller (there are calculations for this). And this if of course required to prevent researchers from having 20 primary endpoints in the hope that by chance one will make 0.05. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

It's not the job of Wikipedians to judge of the quality of a publication. I don't think we have to discuss the validity of a peered review article here, because it has been done by those competant peer reviewers. It would be good enough if we find good secondary references and cite them here, as they are really related to the subject and concern, and classified by time of edition.Jdontfight (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Remember the "Canter PH1, Ernst E. 2003" study only concerns 4 trials, so it's difficult to globalize what is said.
 * The reference "Krisanaprakornkit 2010 about ADHD" does not include specifically TM, it has to be deleted.Jdontfight (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do not use blogs to refute formal medical publications. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What blog are you talking about? You just have to look at the article itself Jdontfight (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep removing high-quality medical sources (Cochrane Library reviews and the like) and replacing them with blogs:, , etc. It should be obvious why this is incredibly inappropriate. MastCell Talk 18:47, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see ALL the mistakes...
This reference concerns meditations such as Mindfulness not TM! Our review finds that the mantra meditation programs do not appear to improve any of the psychological stress and well-being outcomes we examined, but the strength of this evidence varies from low to insufficient.

Please read carefully the sources before editing.

Another common mistake is that it is sometimes considered that meditations are the same, and are not considered as different, this is a great bias, like here, TM is just not cited :) another mistake Please show me TM in this article?.

All the best to all Jdontfight (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you connect specifically, content in the article to the sources you are citing. Because this article is under Discretionary Sanctions, peremptory, unilateral deletions are frowned upon. So changes should be discussed before implementing. Thanks for your input.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC))


 * And you're right of course. This article is specifically about TM and not Mindfulness. Sources must reference TM. Lets just be very specific.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Of course these two sources mention TM (really, they're both the same source, the 2014 AHRQ review). Did either of you actually read the sources before complaining about "mistakes"? If yes, then please explain how you came to the conclusion that they don't mention TM. This is not a rhetorical question: I want to know how you read these sources and decided that they don't mention TM. It would help me understand some of the bizarre sourcing claims around here. MastCell Talk 01:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This is what I said about sources in question."Could you connect specifically content in the article to the sources you are citing." I deliberately did not mention the specific sources or what they say or don't say. I am also suggesting that an editor is right to insist that an article on TM be referenced by sources that deal with TM rather than sources on mindfulness or any other form of meditation. This is a general statement meant to encourage the accurate application WP:RS by a newer user and in no way is specific to any of the sources Jdontfight is discussing. I at no time ever said these sources don't mention TM and I had no intention of entering discussion about the reliability of the sources until sources and content were connected, nor did I suggest mistakes. I'm sorry you misunderstood my cmt which may have been in part due to the way I worded it. I assumed my meaning was obvious and clear. (Littleolive oil (talk) 06:57, 19 December 2015 (UTC))
 * In summarizing this study, you wrote, "the quality of scientific evidence on TM was poor as a whole." The AHRQ review identified three TM studies as having low risk of bias, two as having medium risk, and two as having high risk. I'm not sure how that translates to "poor as a whole." TimidGuy (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

TM is not mentionned in the Abstract, thus it shouldn't be mentionned in this particular TM page, but you may use it on Mindfulness which is cited. And if you use those sources to say that "the quality of scientific evidence on TM was poor as a whole" is completely incorrect and obviously a mistake. So let's change that. Similarly TM movement often claims that 600 or 700 researches, while only 350 are published by independent peer-reviewed journals, so this has to be mentioned Jdontfight (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, so you only read the abstract (not the actual paper), drew mistaken conclusions on the basis of your superficial review, and then came here to lecture everyone about the need to read sources carefully. Got it. To be clear, if you're going to cite or discuss scientific or medical literature, then you need to read the whole paper, not just the abstract. These papers are freely available, so there's really no excuse for not doing so. Our guidelines are pretty clear about this (it is misleading to give a full citation for a source after reading only its abstract; the abstract necessarily presents a stripped-down version of the conclusions and omits the background that can be crucial for understanding exactly what the source says), but really it should be basic common sense. MastCell Talk 18:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

1 mistake
@ Doc James and @MastCell:  The high-quality medical sources Cochrane Library reviews is indeed a good source, and has its place on a page as long as it is related to the subject of the page. Is this case you used this reference that doesn't talk about TM particularly, but talks generally of "meditations". "Meditations differ in both their ingredients and their effects, just as medicines do. Lumping them all together as "essentially the same" is simply a mistake" So those references that are talking about "meditations" in general should not be used in the TM page:


 * Ospina MB, Bond K, Karkhaneh


 * Ospina Bond Karkhaneh file not found


 * Cochrane06


 * goyal-2014-ahrq


 * goyal-2014


 * Krisanaprakornkit

2 professional journalists Blog
@ Doc James and @MastCell: This is not "incredibly inappropriate" not if you read "Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources". Please let me put at you attention this page you might have read long ago. It is said that Identifying_reliable_sources '''"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists''', Please make the changes you reverted Jdontfight (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

So now there shouldn't be any obstacle to write that in this page: "More than 350 peer-reviewed studies, showing positive effects on mental and physical health, have been published in research journals".

All the best to All - Jdontfight (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * A blog (of any kind) is not an appropriate source for this kind of evaluation. Please seek out and reflect high-quality, peer-reviewed secondary sources. Alexbrn (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Who says that? Your source? It's not what WP says anyway. A high-quality, peer-reviewed is not necessary to say that there are "more than 350 peer-reviewed studies, showing positive effects on mental and physical health, have been published in research journals" Jdontfight (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a statement about the state of medical research, so I think a MEDRS source is required. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Jdontfight: You are using the abstract or summary of the reviews to make your claim. You must look at the entire review to ascertain whether that review pertains to Transcendental Meditation. The abstract or summary is not where the specific and explicit information about a study or review is located.

Second, and two points: the 350 peer review claim should be sourced to a stronger source than the one you've used because it is a blog and so may not have the oversight needed for the  claim being made. However, a claim that there are 350 peer reviewed studies is a claim for content in the article, rather than a source  and is  not referencing or supporting health  content or content at all, so MEDRS is not applicable. Further, the studies are not all health related. You need a good RS possibly one that is written by an expert in the field. I'd note that there are 340-350 peer reviewed studies on Transcendental meditation is hardly novel and per the research on the technique is mainstream information. You might look for other sources. I hope this is helpful.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC))

@Littleolive oil "Over 600 studies from over 210 universities and research institutions in 33 countries evaluating its effects have been published since 1970. Research evidence reviewed below indicates that it benefits many of the risk factors that contribute to CVD" Barnes VA, Orme-Johnson DW. Clinical and pre-clinical applications of the Transcendental Meditation program in the prevention and treatment of essential hypertension and cardiovascular disease in youth and adults. Current Hypertension Reviews 2006 2:207-218 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3289096/ (Curr Hypertens Rev. 2006 Aug 1; 2(3): 207–218. doi:  10.2174/157340206778132545) (and others please read below)

I am in no way disputing the research on T M - especially the secondary sources. What I am discussing with you is the source you use for the claim of 350 studies.T M is well researched and recognized given much of its recent research is collaborative with top institutions. I am suggesting you may want to look for a better source for the claim than the one you have.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

3 - References that should not be ignored or deleted on TM page
@ Doc James  and @MastCell  References of peer reviewed meta-analysis and literature review that should also be cited and exploited in this TM page:


 * Anxiety: Since there is a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: "Transcendental Meditation shows marked efficacy in treating anxiety disorders. Conclusion: Overall, TM practice is more effective than treatment as usual and most alternative treatments, with greatest effects observed in individuals with high anxiety"

. Jdontfight (talk) 18:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypertension: A 2013 statement from the American Heart Association said: "TM may be considered in clinical practice to lower BP. Because of many negative studies or mixed results and a paucity of available trials, all other meditation techniques (including MBSR) received a Class III, no benefit, Level of Evidence C recommendation. Thus, other meditation techniques are not recommended in clinical practice to lower BP at this time. ... Conclusion: TM is the only among the behavioral therapy that has proven its efficiency to lower BP and is recommended by AHA as adjuvant methods to help lower blood pressure"


 * Cardiovascular disease risk factors: "Available evidence indicates that among stress reduction approaches, the Transcendental Meditation program is associated with significant reductions in BP. Related data suggest improvements in other CVD risk factors and clinical outcomes."


 * Prevent and treat Cardiovascular diseases: "These findings have important implications for inclusion of TM in efforts to prevent and treat cardiovascular diseases and its clinical consequences." ... "Over 600 studies from over 210 universities and research institutions in 33 countries evaluating its effects have been published since 1970. Research evidence reviewed below indicates that it benefits many of the risk factors that contribute to CVD"


 * Reduce risk factors for Cardiovascular disease: "The Transcendental Meditation (TM) technique is distinct from other techniques of meditation not only in its origin and procedure, but also in the amount and breadth of research testing it. Evidence for its ability to reduce traditional and novel risk factors for Cardiovascular disease (CVD) includes: 1) decreases in blood pressure, 2) reduced use of tobacco and alcohol, 3) lowering of high cholesterol and lipid oxidation, and 4) decreased psychosocial stress. Changes expected to result from reducing these risk factors, namely, reversal of atherosclerosis, reduction of myocardial ischemia and left ventricular hypertrophy, reduced health insurance claims for CVD, and reduced mortality, also have been found with TM practice."

Calderon R et al. Stress, stress reduction and hypercholesterolemia in African Americans and whites: a review. Ethnicity and Disease 1999 9:451-462 - http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/10600068
 * Reduces levels of major Cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors: "Specifically, the Transcendental Meditation technique, an effective antidote to stress, reduces levels of major CHD risk factors including hypercholesterolemia, as well as blood pressure and smoking. Using an effective stress reduction approach for prevention and treatment of CHD and its risk factors in African Americans may prove to be a valuable asset for this underserved population."


 * Greater reduction in use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes: This paper presents a meta-analysis of reseach on the Transcendental Meditation Programme indicating that individuals who learn this programme show a significantly greater reduction in use of illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes than do individuals who participate in program of relaxation, prevention, or treatement.The results also showed that abstinence from illegal drugs, alcohol, and cigarettes was manitained or even incresaed over a long period of time among those who participated in the Transcendental Meditation Programme, in contrast of hight relapse rates for standard treatment programmes. The meta-analysis also indicates that individuals with substance abuse problems who learned the Transcendental Meditation Programme showed significantly improved psychological health in comparison to control.


 * Treating and preventing misuse of chemical substances and long-range improvements in well-being, self-esteem, personal empowerment: This article reviews 24 studies on the benefits of Transcendental Meditation (TM) in treating and preventing misuse of chemical substances. Studies cover noninstitutionalized users, participants in treatment programs, and prisoners with histories of heavy use. All the studies showed positive effects of the TM program. Some of the survey-type studies were unable to exclude the possibility of self-selection or responder biases. However, longitudinal, random-assignment studies with objective measures also showed positive results. Taken together, these and other studies indicate the program simultaneously addresses several factors underlying chemical dependence, providing not only immediate relief from distress but also long-range improvements in well-being, self-esteem, personal empowerment, and other areas of psychophysiological health.


 * Physiology: A wakeful hypometabolic integrated response: "Consistent with the subjective description of meditation as a very relaxed but, at the same time, a very alert state, it is likely that such findings during meditation as increased cardiac output, probable increased cerebral blood flow, and findings reminiscent of the “extraordinary” character of classical reports: apparent cessation of CO2 generation by muscle, fivefold plasma AVP elevation, and EEG synchrony play critical roles in this putative response."


 * Rehabilitative effects of the TM program: "Over the past 30 years, 39 studies have been conducted on the rehabilitative effects of the TM program. These studies have involved various populations, including at-risk youths, participants in treatment programs, and incarcerated offenders. A few studies examined the effects of the TM program in the general population on use of alcohol, cigarettes, and non-prescribed drugs. Longitudinal, random-assignment studies with objective measures confirm the results of retrospective studies and other earlier research. Incarcerated offenders show rapid positive changes in risk factors associated with criminal behavior, including anxiety, aggression, hostility, moral judgment, in-prison rule infractions, and substance abuse. The substance abuse studies, taken together, indicate that the TM program reduces substance use as well as a number of the risk factors that underlie substance dependence, particularly anxiety, depression, neuroticism, and other forms of psychological distress. The TM program also produces a wide range of improvements in psychophysiological well-being, as indicated by better psychological health, enhanced auto-nomic functioning, and improved neuroendocrine balance. The changes in psychological health appear significant for long-term outcomes, as indicated by the lower recidivism rates for parolee practitioners of the TM technique and lower relapse rates for addicts. As a whole, these studies indicate that practice of the TM technique is an effective approach to rehabilitation for individuals prone to criminal behaviors and addictions."


 * Stress reduction and Blood pressure: "Therefore, we conducted an updated systematic review of the published literature and identified 107 studies on stress reduction and Blood pressure (BP). Seventeen trials with 23 treatment comparisons and 960 participants with elevated BP met criteria for well-designed randomized controlled trials and were replicated within intervention categories. Meta-analysis was used to calculate BP changes for biofeedback, −0.8/−2.0 mm Hg (P = NS); relaxation-assisted biofeedback, +4.3/+2.4 mm Hg (P = NS); progressive muscle relaxation, −1.9/−1.4 mm Hg (P = NS); stress management training, −2.3/−1.3 mm (P = NS); and the Transcendental Meditation program, −5.0/−2.8 mm Hg (P = 0.002/0.02). Available evidence indicates that among stress reduction approaches, the Transcendental Meditation program is associated with significant reductions in BP. Related data suggest improvements in other CVD risk factors and clinical outcomes."


 * Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse: Treating and preventing alcohol, nicotine, and drug abuse through Transcendental Meditation: a review and statistical meta-analysis.


 * Hypertension 1992: Schneider RH et al. In search of an optimal behavioral treatment for hypertension: a review and focus on Transcendental Meditation. In EH Johnson et al. (eds), Personality, Elevated Blood Pressure, and Essential Hypertension (pp.291-312). Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing, 1992 - https://books.google.fr/books?id=1sWk1GYCvKoC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=In+search+of+an+optimal+behavioral+treatment+for+hypertension:+a+review+and+focus+on+Transcendental+Meditation&source=bl&ots=E4O3_Ryc-J&sig=PldLjLYPsnmdrJtcTRsC3K1J7HU&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP0tPy8orKAhXDWRoKHYCfBMMQ6AEILTAC#v=onepage&q=In%20search%20of%20an%20optimal%20behavioral%20treatment%20for%20hypertension%3A%20a%20review%20and%20focus%20on%20Transcendental%20Meditation&f=false

Alexander CN et al. Transcendental Meditation, self-actualization, and psychological health: a conceptual overview and statistical meta-analysis. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 1991 6:189-247 - http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1991-24184-001
 * Consistent differential effects suggests that systematic transcendence is the key factor: "Statistical meta-analysis is presented of 42 studies on the effects of TM and other forms of meditation and relaxation on SA. The effect size of TM on overall SA was approximately 3 times as large as that of other forms of meditation and relaxation. Factor analysis of the 12 scales of the Personal Orientation Inventory revealed 3 independent factors: Affective Maturity, Integrative Perspective on Self and World, and Resilient Sense of Self. On these 3 factors, the effect of TM was 3 times as large. The magnitude of these consistent differential effects suggests that systematic transcendence is the key factor."


 * Meta-analysis of psychological studies: Ferguson PC. An integrative meta-analysis of psychological studies investigating the treatment outcomes of meditation techniques. Doctoral thesis, School of Education, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 1981.

Anderson JW et al. Blood pressure response to Transcendental Meditation: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Hypertension 2008 21:310-316 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18311126 - http://www.ganzheitsmed.at/lit_ayurveda.Dateien/009-ajh_Blood_Pressure_Response_to_Transcendental_Meditation.pdf - doi: 10.1038/ajh.2007.65. Epub 2008 Jan 31.
 * Reduction of systolic and diastolic blood pressure: "The regular practice of Transcendental Meditation may have the potential to reduce systolic and diastolic blood pressure by approximately 4.7 and 3.2 mm Hg, respectively. These are clinically meaningful changes."

Eppley K et al. Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1989 45:957-974 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2693491
 * Trait anxiety: a meta-analysis: "Differential effects of relaxation techniques on trait anxiety: a meta-analysis. Effect sizes for the different treatments (e.g., Progressive Relaxation, EMG Biofeedback, various forms of meditation, etc.) were calculated. Most of the treatments produced similar effect sizes except that Transcendental Meditation had significantly larger effect size (p less than .005)"

This list is not complete yet, but considering this, and seeing what this page actually shows, it is suggested to urgently make those needed changes based on the scientific evidences shown and published by those peer reviewed reviews and meta-analysis. Jdontfight (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There a lot of poor sources there: fringe altmed journals and old reviews (i.e. > 5 years old) when we have newer. Please see WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. I am not sure whether the AHA is RS/DUE ... is the quoted text actually in ? Alexbrn (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

To expand: a discussion of sources in the abstract is of little use, we need to know what content is being proposed for those references to support. The complainant seems to want to make a number of claims for the therapeutic efficacy of TM. These exceptional claims will generally require very strong sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and also WP:FRIND. Thus old (> 5 years old) secondary sources in fields where we have recent reviews can be discounted, so can primary sources, blogs and pieces in poor-quality and altmed journals. Any claim that is made needs to be WP:Verifiable per the cited supporting source. The complainant has now twice tried to make this edit which is sourced to: When asked about this on the Talk page, no response has been made. Alexbrn (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * – an altmed journal and so lacking WP:FRINDependence.
 * – a 9-year-old source in a field with newer sources, such as:
 * – potentially a better source (not sure if the AHA is WP:MEDRS or how due their statements are), but which does not appear to support the claim being made. Instead it says: "The overall evidence supports that TM modestly lowers BP. It is not certain whether it is truly superior to other meditation techniques in terms of BP lowering because there are few head-to-head studies. As a result of the paucity of data, we are unable to recommend a specific method of practice when TM is used for the treatment of high BP. However, TM (or meditation techniques in general) does not appear to pose significant health risks. Additional and higher-quality studies are required to provide conclusions on the BP-lowering efficacy of meditation forms other than TM." This is rather different from the text the complainant inserted saying that "TM that has proven its efficiency to lower BP".
 * Looking through Jdontfight's proposals, they boil down to: remove all (high-quality) sources which reach negative conclusions about TM, and include any source, no matter how low-quality, that has something positive to say about TM. No, and no. There seems to be very little interest here in finding the best-quality sources, and instead there's a focus on finding "positive" sources about TM and then trying to shoehorn them into the article (much of the reasoning in the above subsections is particularly tortured). We already mention the AHA findings; repeatedly adding a subsection further amplifying them in isolation is classic undue weight. MastCell Talk 01:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

More information on the Maharishi Effect
No citations:
 * Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, in press. (page 43)
 * 1974 Garland Landrith III and Candace Borland - found eleven cities in which more than one percent of the population had begun the basic Transcendental Meditation technique. (page 44).
 * Dr. Charles Alexander, TM program extended the life span of elderly people. Higher Stages of Adult Development (page 51, first mention;).
 * Dr. Orme-Johnson (page 53).
 * Journal of Conflict Resolution (page 60). Dr. Bruce Russett, editor at the time (page 61).
 * Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, in press (page 68).
 * Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, in press. (page 72).
 * Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Alexandria, Va. 1990. (page 87).

Detractors:
 * Wikipedia article:

"...has been shown to lack a causal basis..."
 * Fales, Evan; Markovsky, Barry (1997). "Evaluating Heterodox Theories". Social Forces 76 (2): 511–525. doi:10.2307/2580722. JSTOR 2580722.

"The evidence was said to result from cherry-picked data"
 * Schrodt, Phillip A. (1990). "A methodological critique of a test of the Maharishi technology of the unified field". Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (4): 745–755. doi:10.1177/0022002790034004008. JSTOR 174187.

"...and the credulity of believers."
 * Epstein, Edward (December 29, 1995). "Politics and Transcendental Meditation". San Francisco Chronicle.

Books:
 * The Maharishi effect: Creating world peace through the synthesis of modern science and ancient Vedic science: the Maharishi Technology of the Unified Field Paperback – 1985
 * The Maharishi Effect: A Revolution Through Meditation Paperback – May, 1986
 * Google books.

93.80.229.75 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the first couple and the page says "journal not found", then gave up since this just appears to be a list of dubious/broken sources. If you disagree please start by indicating the BEST one (one that meets WP:MEDRS) that might be suitable for use. Alexbrn (talk) 08:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of talk page sections should be disabled or changed
Editors who have an article an established way they like, often put aggressive archiving of the talk page in place to stop real discussion on changing the article.

This is clearly what is happening on this article's talk page. One or more authors has set up an extremely agressive archiving bot, so that editors don't realize how controversial the current version of the article is. 93.80.229.75 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Archiving is set to 2 months which seems reasonable. Archived threads can be found in the archive. Any editor can of course de-archive a thread if there is a need for further discussion. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Revisions reverted

 * This is a student so I am going to add information for him that may give further insights into WP processes.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Hello Alexbrn. I am wondering about the revision I made to this article that you reverted. I believe stating that the data up to date is "of poor quality" is a bit misleading and biased. I propose a more neutral conclusion, for example, "the data to date is varied in its conclusions." I noticed another editor made the same comment as I considering "poor quality". I also would like to ask if you have read the two citations, and I am wondering what are your thoughts about the eleventh citation which does not name Transcendental Meditation at all?

Thank you, RayDudo (talk) 17:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Ospina source says "Scientific research on meditation practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and is characterized by poor methodological quality. Firm conclusions on the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based on the available evidence." We appear to be reflecting that. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Welcome to Wikipedia. This article and especially its research section is highly contentious so you have in fact, walked into a land mine. To your point about the research on meditation referring in general to meditation rather than specifically to T M: while the abstract refers to mantra meditation and mediation in general, the review itself does specify that T M was one of the forms of mantra meditation studied. So its always safest to check out the full study or review when looking at sources. Good job discriminating between the more general meditation and T M. Had the review not specified T M; what we would have had is WP:OR. Content must specifically refer to the content included in Wikipedia. You have also pinpointed a problem with the content in this article. and I'll outline the concerns. At the same time, WP is a collaborative community and  there is agreement for the content presently in the article.  Unfortunately, agreement does not always equate to fact. This is a basic premise of Wikipedia. Content must be verified,  and then reliably sourced but truth is not a given nor is fact. For example: The Opsina review is relatively old; Wikipedia prefers sources in the sciences that are less than 5 years old. There is more recent research on T M, however, the Opsina review continues to dictate the information in the article. Second, Opsina is one review, in this article it is being used to speak in Wikipedia's voice that is, as authoritarian. However, as content based on an older, single  review that speaks for the state of the research on  T M, at the very least, the Opsina review should be in-line attributed so the reader knows this is not writtenin  Wikipedia's voice but is the interpreted content based on the results of a single, older review. Again there  has been some highly contested, years-old, agreement that in-line attribution  will not be tolerated.


 * I'm going to suggest that an article such as this one (check out the top of this page to see that the article is under discretionary sanctions is one to discuss and also observe but diving in to making changes may be tricky. I think its good to get the view point of editors  here which will give you a perspective on how highly contentious articles are created and what the underlying issues can be. Just a heads up.(Littleolive oil (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC))
 * In addition, the Ospina review has been archived as no longer current and was criticized by subsequent reviews for using an inappropriate method of assessment (an unmodified Jadad scale). A more current review is this one[′http://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v29/n11/full/jhh20156a.html], from 2015, which found that all 12 studies they assessed were acceptable according to the Cochrane standard (which is generally considered to be the most highly regarded standard): "The quality of studies meeting inclusion criteria was acceptable overall, with all 12 studies indicating a low risk of reporting bias and most trials having a low risk of detection and other biases." If you'd like me to email you PDFs of any research reviews, just let me know. TimidGuy (talk) 18:57, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Sadly, the link supplied does not work, but one assumes you mean "Investigating the effect of transcendental meditation on blood pressure: a systematic review and meta-analysis." If so, it would be important to note that it does not quite say what you suggest. To be precise, "Two reviewers (editors note: of 6 total reviewers) independently used the Cochrane Collaboration's quality assessment tool to assess each study's quality.". Not what you have stated. Although, I understand trying to read research papers and making sense of them can be difficult. That paper does however, make a point that does seem to support and even add to what Opsina found, among other "critics" I quote, "However, some biases may have influenced the results, primarily a lack of information about study design and methods of BP measurement in primary studies." Not really a wiki contributor, so sadly unlikely to review replies. And will leave further debate to you wiki experts, but hope you find this useful. Dreeddor (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link works for me. You appear to only have been looking at the abstract. If you look at the article itself, you'll see that I quoted it accurately. The authors used the rigorous Cochrane guideline to evaluate the studies and found that the quality of all 12 studies was acceptable overall. TimidGuy (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. However, and perhaps you are new to academic writing so I understand how confusing these things can be, the abstract is designed to clearly summarize both the findings and the study itself, The authors have thus agreed that only two of them have used Cochraine guidelines but more importantly found "some biases may have influenced the results, primarily a lack of information about study design and methods of BP measurement in primary studies.". This is sadly the same as other meta-studies have found. As I said this type of writing is very different to that  which you might come across in your normal "new-age" "alternative health" type reading. I shall try and find some online reference material that may help you with this sort of more, "thorough", type of research if that would be helpful? Sadly, the link does still not work for me. Odd. Is it behind a paywall? Dreeddor (talk) 17:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The link works for me too. Of course we never rely on an abstract which summarizes, to describe the details of a study or review. Further, having worked here for years with TimidGuy, I suggest he is very experienced with reading research and your comments seem ignorant of that fact. If you want to debate the outcomes of study or review that would be fine per Wikipedia collaborative policies and guidelines; making assumptions that border on the insulting probably are not.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC))


 * I am sorry to offend but I did not make an reasoned assumption. This is standard in the academic process where one can be a little more "to the point" then you might find in your usual areas such as the so called "new age" (levitation, controlling events by one's mind,  magic  effects, etc, etc, that I see noted in this article)  When I find people who make multiple contributions to new age subjects I often find they have little to any academic background, at least in the sciences. English and sociology research methodologies are  not the same as those used in science. An undergraduate degree in sociology does not mean one can also read,or more importantly understand,  a paper on string theory. I am sure you can understand this? This is somewhat supported by trying to use this paper to counter another paper of a much different type. As to not using the summery findings in a wiki article; well these are often used to explain the findings to an none specialist reader also. Someone without the proper background might draw incorrect conclusions from the data itself and stray, unknowingly, into presenting original research never intended by the original research. Worse, they might "cheery pick" findings to support whatever strange world view they might have. Sadly, supporters of various religions, new age and alternative theories have been doing just this for a very long time. The authors are clear that they only looked at 12 studies, only two of the team applied  Cochraine guidelines in their reading  and found the possibility of clear bias in the results.  Nothing said changes this fact. Again, I apologise if people here are rather "over sensitive" to the offer of help. It will not happen again Dreeddor (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The best way to deal with other editors on Wikipedia is to avoid assumptions simply because we have user names to stand behind and there is no way of knowing who does what, or has what kind of background or education, and more importantly what opinion an editor has of the topic area.The information that one might have in academia where one knows another academic's background are not present here. The collaborative process to function smoothly requires a kind of detachment from judgement and further, criticism of other editors. Just a few thoughts in case they help further editing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 02:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC))


 * I agree. However, one must assume something from the way one tries to deal with the source material and picks only certain facts from it. And you are right, one should never assume that anyone does have any knowledge about the academic process of the subject in hand unless they state a, verifiable, biography. And you are correct, your colleague does not do this. It is for this reason I have tried to gently point out they are picking bits of data from what maybe, for them, a very complex paper. It is for this reason, I think they can only use the summary as a source of information to place in the article.

Anyway, as interesting as all this might be it leads away from the subject in hand. Should this research be included? I can see no reason why not, as it generally seems to support the statement in the lead of a far greater meta-analysis. With the added finding that of the small number of studies examined, two authors used a different system to analyse them and found those twelve "acceptable" but sadly, some biases may have influenced the results, primarily a lack of information about study design and methods of BP measurement in primary studies.". Indeed, this is likely to support the notion of poor research design found elsewhere and most importantly bias. Now, how one words this, without resorting to either original thoughts or "cherry picking", to support whatever view one is most attracted to, is the difficulty. But I am sure, if you are both as experienced as you say you will have no trouble with this. Dreeddor (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

technique
I was hoping this section would give a terse description of the technique and wha sets it apart from other kinds of meditation. Doceddi (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See Transcendental Meditation technique. TimidGuy (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Misrepresented Citations
I am concerned that the tenth and eleventh citations in this article are not represented correctly. The line reads, "It is impossible to say whether or not it has any effect on health, as the research to date is of poor quality." This appears very biased and also misrepresents the citations attributed to it. The tenth citation, retrieved from Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviewsdoi:10.1002/14651858.CD004998.pub2. states that there is not enough research done on persons with anxiety disorders. To me, this does not constitute that meditation has no effect on health because that would give the impression that this study was performed on subjects with sound psychological health. Then the eleventh citation, retrieved from "Meditation practices for health: state of the research". https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17764203 does not name Transcendental Meditation. The site only names Mantra meditation. For this reason, I believe it is not a reliable source. I believe the line should be deleted and possibly replaced with another line that is backed by citations and discusses the wide controversy over health enhancement. RayDudo (talk) 20:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right indeed. This section of scientific research is just a joke as I said it here :.
 * This is just clear POV Pushing, ignoring dozens of |secondary or third reliable and independent sources published in peers reviewed scientific journals (that fits the Wikipedia standards for good sources).
 * And I found many more of them. We can make a good article based on scientific basis and Wikipedia standards. Jdontfight (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Some more news about TM?
- Ministry of Health of Luxembourg - Loyola University Chicago offers medical students meditation @Alexbrn and @ Doc James, '''POV Pushing should end on this page. Why not built a good objective article for a change?''' Jdontfight (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ministry of Health Issues Guidelines against Hypertension, Among Luxembourg's Leading Causes of Death.
 * Communiqué – 17.05.2016.
 * sante.public.lu.
 * WTTW physician heal thyself video
 * Chicago Tonight | WTTW
 * Loyola University Chicago offers medical students meditation

Well done and some further possibilities
Hi all

Just wanted to say how pleased I am with the current state of the article, having put a lot of time and energy into it over the years.

Well done all!

I also found two significant versions of this page, with many aparently strong refferences which could be used: []

and

[]

for anyone who has the badnwith

<3 Sethie (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought the results of TM had been scientifically confirmed
A rather surprising Wiki article IMO.

I was initiated into TM back in 1974 and have done TM off and on (mostly off) since then. The rare times I do meditate I feel an incredible sense of release, a pressure drop, and my body feels heavy. I usually sleep well that night. My point is this. How can a physical response like this NOT have positive mental and physical side effects? Snapdog187 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Well Snapdog - there's a very large (and powerful) "you can't prove that" contingent in the wiki community (especially in the medical areas). This is why so SO many of the meditation genre articles have a negative spin to them (even if it goes against the rules). ANYthing even remotely close to religion is very much a tough area to edit on wiki.   Fortunately humanity doesn't depend on wiki for advancement, else we'd still be communicating by banging rocks together.  Frankly, given that we can't "see" it, I'm surprised we even have an article on "Air".  Still - it is what it is; and in the long run we're better off with wiki than without. — Ched :  ?  16:38, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Snapdog is generalising from the particular, in other words relying on anecdotal evidence. If tm works for him/her, fine. But one cannot conclude from this that it works for everyone. See also: placebo effect Crawiki (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 08:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

There are 350 peer reviewed scientific studies proving that TM has benefits. Not really anecdotal is it. 76.64.2.236 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10XeslMRbiw

Why hasn't this information of the peer reviews been included in the wiki article? 142.112.232.203 (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Because it is mostly marketing. Basically the studies in their entirely have been poorly done with such COI that it is unclear what effect TM has. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

James, as an MD in Canada I assume you know what "peer-reviewed" means. According to Merriam-Webster, peer review is a process by which something proposed (as for research or publication) is evaluated by a group of experts in the appropriate field. 160 SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS have published more than 380 peer-reviewed research studies on the TM technique -- 160. Many respected US and international universities and research centres, including Harvard Medical School, Stanford Medical School, Yale Medical School, and UCLA Medical School conducted these studies. These are not exactly fly-by-night institutions known for quackery.

My name is Bruce; I am also Canadian and honestly can't figure out why you won't change your mind about the published scientific validation of TM. Measuring brain waves, blood pressure and cortisol is not a matter of opinion. It's effing science! Now I’m not a 100% fan of TM. I think that yogic flying is a huge scam. No one has ever flown and no one ever will. And obviously, if you meditate 8 hours a day for months at a time you are going to have psychological issues. So the organization may be a bit sketchy, but the technique works, at least for me.

I just can’t figure out how you refuse to honour the scientific method. 160 SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS are wrong! Really? How do you get away with it on Wiki? Do you have a grudge against TM? Snapdog187 (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:MEDRS.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Bruce. I agree James' comment is puzzling given that these days much TM research is collaborative with prestigious universities; to attack the research is to also attack some of the most prestigious institutions in the world. However, when dealing with research on health on Wikipedia which is an encyclopedia and therefore a format for relating what is supported by reliably published research, we have for the sake of health safety of the reader established WP:MEDRS which means we are looking for information that comes out of secondary sources. This also means we are citing research that appears in reviews (multiple studies), highly reliable journals and textbooks. This standard is maintained across all health related articles on Wikipedia. Yes, this standard can and has been abused but still must remain in place to ensure readers have an overall sense of the research and also know Wikipedia content is not based on, for example, one lone study whose conclusions may down the line be disproved. The alternate is true of course, that new and critical advances in health related research all start out as a single study, as fringe to what is accepted. Until we have that lone study as part of a secondary source, is replicated, or has become part of a teaching regime we cannot use that content on Wikipedia. So peer review no longer holds water as a sole criteria for including content on Wikipedia.


 * There are secondary sources on TM on Wikipedia; their use has been debated.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC))
 * To answer Bruce's question, it's necessary first to correct some basic misunderstandings about how science works. The efficacy of a therapy is determined not by a numerical count of peer-reviewed articles published supporting it, but rather by an assessment of the strength of the evidence supporting its use. These are two different, and orthogonal, metrics. The "350+ peer-reviewed articles!" line (and its cousin, the "160 scientific journals!" line) are TM talking points which are intended to obscure this distinction. Leaving aside the accuracy of these numbers (which are a bit dubious in their own right), the paper-counting obscures the need to assess the quality, and not simply the quantity, of published work on TM. The major approaches to assessing clinical efficacy in this setting are systematic reviews and meta-analyses, often performed in combination. These techniques assess the quality of published work and combine high-quality studies to improve our ability to make scientifically sound statements about efficacy. There have been a number of high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the literature on TM, and on meditation in general. The most robust and reputable have been published by the U.S. AHRQ and the UK-based Cochrane Collaboration; they are cited in the article, and they found that TM generally had no benefit over "control" therapies such as general health education. They also found&mdash;and this is a key point&mdash;that much of the published literature on TM was of low scientific quality and suffered from potential biases. James' comment regarding WP:MEDRS was probably meant to point you to this section of the guideline, which emphasizes the need to use high-quality secondary sources (e.g. systematic reviews and meta-analyses), rather than selecting and citing primary sources (e.g. individual peer-reviewed studies). There are a number of reasons for this, but here's an illustration: it would be pretty easy for me to create a Wikipedia page, using only peer-reviewed articles, claiming that HIV is harmless and AIDS non-existent. (To do that, of course, I'd need to ignore a lot of contradicting literature, as well as context and secondary sources, but it's quite possible). The point is that it is not our role to summarize the peer-reviewed biomedical literature; it's our role to document how other reputable, independent sources have summarized it. I hope this explains why, despite the 350 articles/160 journals, we reflect the view that TM is poorly supported by the scientific literature. MastCell Talk 19:46, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

So the Harvard, Stanford, Yale, and UCLA Medical Schools plus 160 prestigious US and international scientific journals could use peer-reviewed articles to claim that HIV is harmless and AIDS non-existent. Really! And they could get away with that. I don’t know what is going on here, but I think I’ll step off. 70.49.96.75 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No. What I'm saying is that people at those medical schools could publish articles in those sorts of journals claiming something crazy or incorrect (in fact, they have, from time to time; I'm happy to provide examples). Peer review is not a perfect filter in that regard. And then someone could come here and use the appeal to authority fallacy, as you're doing, to advocate for Wikipedia to promote those crazy or incorrect ideas. I apologize if the analogy to HIV/AIDS was more confusing than helpful, but there is an important point here about how science works, which I'm happy to keep discussing, or not. MastCell Talk 01:11, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Malnak vs Yogi
Do you really want to continue with this statement-"obviously intended to argue with what the court found. Giving warnings for edit warning and POV pushing now"-given the source quoted here:"We agree with the district court's finding that the SCI/TM course was religious in nature." Please read the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC))


 * Note: You removed more accurate and sourced content.You are edit warring.Just return the accurate content per the source please.(Littleolive oil (talk) 03:57, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

Add: including SCI with TM as the source indicates, as I said, puts SCI in a negative light not a positive one as your edit summary suggests. You have this backwards. I have just added accurate but less than complimentary material.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Thanks for coming to talk. What is the reason for writing out the whole name in this exact spot? Jytdog (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should put the whole name. The nub of the finding was that TM was religious, by putting the whole name it obfuscates that fact. We may note (per source) that proponents of TM disagree that it's religious. Alexbrn (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


 * SCI and TM are two separate disciplines/experiences. Referred to in Malnak vs Yogi, one is a course, theoretical in nature, and is called SCI. The other is referred to as mantra and puja and is a practice or is practical, and is a meditation technique. The document makes it clear throughout that the case dealt with SCI/TM not just TM. We don't have the leeway as editors, seems to me, to make a change in what the source says and explains. Just using TM would be inaccurate... as simple as that.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * As for writing out the name in that spot. As a technical feature of writing we should let our readers know what SCI stands for or means at the first mention in the article? That seems obvious to me.
 * I have to admit to being surprised at the contention and threats that came out of adding accurate content per the source.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * " A careful review of the transcript, and the content of the course, reveals nothing other than an effort to propagate TM, SCI, and the views of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi" (ref). Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm confused. What's your point? Our business is to cite the source accurately. I did that and received a hail storm of accusations and threats about my intentions. I also added something that was more pejorative than what was in place since it shows SCI was not allowed in the schools. Please don't confuse adding more accurate content with anything else.(Littleolive oil (talk) 05:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * Unless someone can tell me why we would not cite the source accurately TM/SCI should be readded. Right? (talk) 05:46, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * See above. We should follow the strong secondary source rather than allowing Wikipedia editors to invent what is important. This was seen as a case about TM. (Also I just noticed you are listed here as having a COI on this topic: you should not be editing it at all, let alone edit-warring!) Alexbrn (talk)

05:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Alexbrn. That's nonsense. We are using the document to source the decision. If you choose to allow use of some of that document but not other parts you are cherry picking content to suit control of content which is not neutral. You want this to be what I consider to be inaccurate and to use that kind of argument, so be it. Anyone can add a tag to a page and did. I have never been shown to have COI edits and those who are consistently pushing COI accusations are also those who have mischaracterized my editing. The same arbitration that added discretionary sanctions to TM articles did not label me as a COI editor despite the extensive nature of that arbitration and the information I sent them about me. We can't cherry pick decisions either. Nor did a neutral admin who patrolled the COI Noticeboard find a COI. That's where I take my direction not from editors who mischaracterize me.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

When faced with a document that clearly shows the case was TM/SCI, argument becomes about edit warring and COI, while Jytdog mischaracterizes my edits and edit warred out accurate content with misleading summaries which he did without discussion first which is, by the way, peremptory deletion of sourced content, a no-no under the discretionary sanctions (or was), then what I am dealing with is a big school of red herrings and since I have no desire to thrash around with red herrings-always a waste of time-I'll let this be for now. This won't be the first article I've walked away from knowing it was inaccurate.(Littleolive oil (talk) 06:25, 24 September 2017 (UTC))
 * You can't privilege your spin on a primary source over what expert secondary sources say. That really is Wikipedia 101. Alexbrn (talk) 17:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)