Talk:Transcendental Meditation research/Archive 1

NPOV
"Transcendental Meditation research has been ongoing since the first studies conducted at the UCLA and Harvard University were published in Science and the American Journal of Physiology in 1970 and 1971.[1]Research reviews and medical textbooks say that Transcendental Meditation is the most studied meditation technique, and that it has specific effects on the physiology. They differ in regard to their assessment of research quality and of health outcomes relative to control groups. Research reviews say that more research is needed to firmly establish the effects on mental and physical health.
 * Current text

The research has included studies on physiological changes during meditation, clinical applications, cognitive effects, mental health, addiction, and rehabilitation. Beginning in the 1990s, a focus of research has been the effects of Transcendental Meditation on cardiovascular disease, with over $20 million in funding from the National Institutes of Health.[2]Medical journals that have published the research include Archives of Internal Medicine[3] (published by the American Medical Association) and Hypertension [4] (published by the American Heart Association)."


 * Outline
 * 1 Health outcomes
 * 2 Mental function
 * 3 Criminal rehabilitation, addiction
 * 4 Effects on the brain
 * 5 Effects on the physiology
 * 6 Contraindications
 * 7 Research quality
 * 8 Research funding and promotion

I've marked the article with an NPOV tag until we can revise the intro.  Will Beback   talk    20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Lets see what is inaccurate in the lead before talk about revising it. What needs to be revised?(olive (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
 * I don't understand what you're suggesting. We can't discuss revising it until we agree what is inaccurate? It seems like discussing revisions is the reason for this thread.
 * I've posted the curent intro and the TOC above. Just looking at that the current TOC, it seems like the intro does not reflect the contents.   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The intro is summarized in terms of the general trend of research, and in that sense I think it is It is accurate and neutral, but again minimal. If editors want a more in depth summary, I think that's fine. I don't see how this is a NPOV concern, though. At any rate I'm happy to work on expanding the lead.(olive (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Just to take the last bit, the naming of journals and publishers seems like excess detail. OTOH, there's very little about the doubts concerning the research. Hence the NPOV tag. But I'm sure we can resolve this quickly, and once we do we can copy to the TMT article as a summary.
 * Based on the outline, I suggest that we have one paragraph for health outcome and physiology, one for mental functioning and effects on the brain, and one for research quality, funding, and promotion.    Will Beback    talk    23:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is about the same ration concerning doubts to the research as there is to the positive response to the research which is considerable. Both those areas should "grow" equally. Agree. Naming publications could very well be too much detail.(olive (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC))
 * "A study found a positive outcome" is a positive view, "the study had flaws" is a critical view. They don't need to grow equally, because they aren't quite equally prominent. While there is criticism of the quality of the studies, it isn't as prominent a view as the non-critical reporting of them. On other related issues, like promotion, I'm not sure if there's anything other than a critical view. But that issue probably only merits a sentence anyway.   Will Beback    talk    00:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's keep that in mind as we go forward" While there is criticism of the quality of the studies, it isn't as prominent a view as the non-critical reporting of them." and yes, thanks, I understand the difference between positive outcomes, flawed studies, and studies that do not have positive outcomes.(olive (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC))


 * And to clarify my statement above. Grow equally means per weight, and that we not expand any part while not reflecting on all of the other parts. If that makes any sense. Anyway. Onward.(olive (talk) 03:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC))
 * That sounds good. I suggest we draft the three topical paragraphs first, then circle back to write the lead paragraph.   Will Beback    talk    04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's how NPOV is handled in the Wikipedia article on meditation: "Since the 1960s, meditation has been the focus of increasing scientific research of uneven rigor and quality.[6] In over 1000 published research studies, various methods of meditation have been linked to changes in metabolism, blood pressure, brain activation, and other bodily processes.[7][8] Meditation has been used in clinical settings as a method of stress and pain reduction.[9]" It seems like a good model regarding how to represent quality. Short of putting an extended debate in the lead, we should simply come up with a neutral general statement that encompasses both points of view. "Research of uneven rigor and quality" says it all. Everyone would agree with that, including the researchers. TimidGuy (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The approach used in Meditation


 * Good suggestion. I've placed text based on this in the TM intro. I've moved the more detailed text that was there to this article. It can be part of the general discussion on the intro new intro here.   Will Beback    talk    06:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Other studies

 * ''...the practice of Transcendental Meditation leads to lower blood pressure, decreased propensity towards addiction, and improved academic performance.

added this material to Transcendental Meditation, but that editor misrepresented these as independent reviews. One of them appears to be a review, but none of them look independent. There was a discussion at Talk:Transcendental Meditation, but this material does not seem appropriate for that article which is now just a summary. Here, we'll need to decide which of these to include. The latter two might not meet MEDRS. I've asked the editor to comment, but they've only edited on three days spread over four years, so this may be a drive-by edit.  Will Beback   talk    05:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We need to use the best reviews we have(olive (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC))
 * We all agree on that. However two of these citations aren't reviews.   Will Beback    talk    02:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Independent" and a thought or two or three
Independent as it has come to be used in the TM articles is a bit of a red herring, and is being used incorrectly. Per WP:MEDRS:

''Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentin other articles.''


 * Non independent would be as the quote says: "Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions." Reviews we are using are not "written" by researchers associated with TM. if they were I would agree we shouldn't use them as sources. Peer review, and publication in reputable journals ensures oversight. Reviews provide yet another and even more stringent level of oversight. Most researchers have biases or they wouldn't be working in specifically chosen fields, the oversight of peer review and quality of publication counter those biases.
 * Using the term "TM researchers"as we have in several places is not good because its not accurate . Many of these studies were done in collaboration with other researchers at other universities so an all encompassing phrase like TM researchers just doesn't work.
 * WP:MEDRS comes into play when dealing with health claims, so on much of this article its not applicable. I would see this article as a place that gives a good overview of what's been done in TM research including sections on opinions on the research based on academic analysis of the work, and another separate section on opinions that are based more in popular sources and press. As well it could include research institutions and possibly a short section on the researchers themselves.
 * The TM research article, right now a cut and paste from the TM technique article is pretty hard to wade through so maybe some reorganization also would help the reader.(olive (talk) 19:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC))


 * When I look at studies I often find it difficult to determine where they were conducted. However the assumption is that they are conducted at the institution of the lead author. If that institution is MUM, which is intimately connected to TM, then the research is not conducted independently of the movement by third parties. If "TM researcher" is an invalid description then maybe we should delete category:Transcendental Meditation researchers. I suggest we don't get hung up on this. We still have to finish writing the intro.  Will Beback    talk    20:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where the research is conducted is not at issue. The researcher is not the third party. A researcher is the first party. A jury of peers/ journal publications determines the quality of the research/primary study and whether it is of a quality to be published. The established reputation of the publication helps determine the quality of the oversighting we can expect. A review is generally a collection of these primary studies. The NIH didn't say, since the research was done at MUM, its not a good study, not good research, not well done, must be biased. This word independent word we are tossing around here is a wrong use of the meaning. What we have to look at is if the research was reviewed if we are using the research to support a medical claim. If we are describing what was done we can cite the studies in different areas to describe these areas. We can also say, 340 or so studies are peer reviewed, 25O are  not. We are trying to describe what has been done in terms of research. Even the history of the research is pertinent. What were the first studies like. What are the studies like now. This must be sorted out and agreed on or we cannot move forward. (olive (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC))


 * According to what source are you making these assertions for what qualifies as a first party versus a third party? You say that where the research is conducted doesn't matter, then you say that some research was conducted at MUM, so I don't understand that point. I disagree that this needs to be sorted out before we can do anything else. That sounds like a recipe for stagnation.    Will Beback    talk    02:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The best on-Wiki definition I can find is Party and person, which says, "A third-party source is a source that isn't involved in the event. The third party is the neutral, outside observer." A primary source is the original study and a secondary source is a review. So secondary (or tertiary) sources from third-parties are best.   Will Beback    talk    04:46, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that we shouldn't get hung up on this. If we're going to identify a couple reviews that are independent, then we should label all of the others as independent, except for maybe Rainforth. A small point of fact: NIH-funded studies where the first author is from MUM weren't conducted at MUM. Olive, I think in those instances where we say "TM researchers," it's where we're citing a rebuttal rather than a study, and the authors are, or were, from MUM (except for the sixth author on Rainforth). I think in those cases we could say "Researchers affiliated with Maharishi U." I like your ideas in regard to refashioning the article. TimidGuy (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "NIH-funded studies where the first author is from MUM weren't conducted at MUM." How do we know that? I understood that the NIH awarded money to MUM to build a research facility. Is no government-funded research conducted at the university?
 * Why should we "refashion the article"? Most of the content has been stable.    Will Beback    talk    11:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The studies say where they were conducted. (This one, for example, was conducted in West Oakland, California in conjunction with a researcher there.) The NIH-funded studies were all collaborations. Five of the recent studies were conducted at the University of Maryland in conjunction with David Haaga, a researcher there who was the principal investigator (and who doesn't do TM). Perhaps these things should be clarified in the article. Small point of fact: no research facility was built; the $8 million was used for funding randomized controlled trials. Being an NIH center for five years simply means that they give you money to pass out to collaborators to fund randomized controlled trials, which typically cost around $2 million per 100 subjects. TimidGuy (talk) 11:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If a linguist travels to a foreign country to record a dialect and then returns to his home institution to write up his results, was the study conducted in the field or at the university? I'd say the study was conducted in the field but is still the product of the professor working for his institution. Likewise, if a bunch of professors from MUM travel to West Oakland to conduct a study that does not make it a third party source for TM topics. They don't cease to be MUM faculty and become independent researchers just by leaving the campus. A study conducted in a different university lab under the primary control of an unaffiliated researcher, but with MUM co-authors, is semi-independent I'd suppose. In those cases it'd be nice to know who paid for the research. Perhaps the NIH, indirectly. In any case, we're better off using reviews instead of studies when we're talking about medical issues.
 * Thanks for the explanation of the NIH funds. I'd imagined "NIH center" as a building rather than a designation.   Will Beback    talk    12:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I like Olive's idea to mention the "history" of TM research - what was looked at in the first studies, what was discovered, how the experiments changed over the years and how the focus of the studies changed. We could also talk about the development of the "quality" of the research and other such topics. --BwB (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I simply did a cut and paste of a section. This is a complete article, and can and should be more comprehensive.(olive (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Indeed, one of the reasons for splitting this off was to allow it to grow further. A history of the research would be helpful, though it will be tricky to write.   Will Beback    talk    01:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, I was just trying to clarify some things and wasn't saying these studies are independent, nor that individual studies should be included. And apologies for this digression: The whole thing about "independent studies" is a bit misleading. Who do you think conducts the pharmaceutical research? The companies themselves conduct all of the research and reviews up until the time a drug is released. After that they pay for 60% of the cost of reviews. Also, bias is considered to be a widespread problem, not just in meditation research. It's commonly recognized that all researchers tend to develop a commitment to a particular hypothesis. There's a small literature on that issue. And the leading investigators in other areas of meditation research themselves practice the techniques they research: Davidson (mindfulness) and Kabat-Zinn (mindfulness-based stress reduction). The latter sells CDs and conducts meditation retreats. TimidGuy (talk) 11:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't edit article on commercial pharmaceuticals so I don't know how drug studies are typically handled. But I'd imagine that if studies of a drug conducted by independent researcher had significantly different results from those obtained by drug company researchers then that would be worth mentioning. If Pfizer says they have a wonder drug but others say it is no better than a placebo, don't you think that'd be worth noting?
 * In this case we have hundreds of studies from MUM-affiliated researchers and far fewer from non-MUM researchers. But the MUM researchers obtained uniformly positive results. 100%. Not a single study of theirs failed to show a positive effect, no matter what was being studied. That record of achievement is not matched by the independent researchers. So instead of hiding the bias (or pointing to it absent sources that discuss it), let's let readers decide. It's perfectly appropriate to say which studies or reviews were paid for or conducted by MUM or its staff, and which were not. As it happens, I've come across some additional sources which discuss bias in TM research and will add those as time permits.    Will Beback    talk    12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out in the past that your statement about 100% isn't factual. Where are you getting that information? TimidGuy (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find that conversation. IIRC you said there were a couple of studies that had negative outcomes, but that Orme-Johnson had said the outcomes were actually positive and had been misinterpreted by the study authors, or something to that effect. Given that there have been something over 700 studies performed, maybe it's only 99%. That wouldn't be significantly different from 100%. Do you recall the studies with negative outcomes?   Will Beback    talk    04:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Consider, for example, Doc's favorite information from Ospina regarding the meta-analyses comparing TM to health education: "In a 2007 government report, meta-analyses of five studies on the effects of TM on hypertensive patients found that the effects were no greater than health education regarding blood pressure, body weight, heart rate, stress, anger, self-efficacy, cholesterol, dietary intake, or level of physical activity." Those five studies are by researchers associated with MUM. Those studies had mixed results, which is why the meta-analyses showed no effect. (Unfortunately, Ospina double counted two studies; there are actually only three different groups of subjects, so a correct meta-anlaysis may have gotten a different result.)


 * Note that pharmaceutical companies don't publish studies that aren't positive. Over 20% of all pharmaceutical studies show no effect, and over 40% of the studies on antidepressants show no effect. All of those are unpublished. There can be any number of unpublished, no-effect studies; as long as there are a minimum of two studies showing an effect, the FDA will approve a new drug. Also, one factor in publication bias is simply the competitive nature of academic publication. It's always very difficult to get any study published (only a fraction are accepted for publication), and it's even more difficult to get a no-effect study published. So sometimes the publication bias simply results from the peer-review process. One important thing to consider is that most of the research results produced by MUM scientists have been independently replicated. The 2006 study published by the AMA and conducted by scientists at the Cedar-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles got positive results, for example, that replicated and extended the findings of earlier hypertension studies. (This study came out after the Ospina cutoff date, and isn't included in the meta-analysis.) TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Which studies are those? Are you saying there were five papers written about three studies?
 * Where are you getting your information about drug studies?
 * "...most of the research results produced by MUM scientists have been independently replicated..." MUM and MERU scientists have conducted hundreds of studies. How many have been conducted without their participation?   Will Beback    talk    20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is the oversight/jury in the publication, quality of the publication,  and whether the studies in the case  of health claims have been included in reviews or other prominent secondary sources. This trumps who did the research because this kind of oversight guarantees as much as is possible lack of bias in the research itself. As has been repeated here multiple times, all researchers have personal biases and interests. Peer review/publication ensure as much as is possible that bias has  not entered the research arena. Frankly the insistence on ignoring this threshold, in instituting rules that only apply to the so called TM research, as well as the  removal of reliably sourced content is becoming a grave concern.(olive (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
 * There are other thresholds for inclusion, including relevance.
 * Whether a source is labeled as independent is separate from the issues of including or excluding it. I don't think this thread is about excluding sources.   Will Beback    talk    21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed there are other thresholds for inclusion including relevance and weight. That is a very separate discussion that applies to each source as it comes up. I began this thread and the focus was on the propensity of excluding sources based on the word/idea defined for the TM articles as "independent". This was and continues to be a concern.(olive (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
 * What source has been excluded improperly from this article?   Will Beback    talk    21:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an across article concern with the TM research, and this is now the mother article for the research. My concern is two fold, a more general  concern, misuse of a term,  which has been applied across the articles, and a more specific concern, deletion of content, and my concern is being registered here for the record. (olive (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Huh? I don't see what any of that has to do with the sentence in question. Let's keep this thread focused on the question of "independence". If you want to deal with excluding sources about TM research then maybe we should start a separate thread on that topic.   Will Beback    talk    23:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarify: Misuse of term -"independent", then using that misuse of term to judge and to exclude content...Yes, we have to deal with and clarify the use of the term, and in doing so will be dealing with the sources themselves and a threshold for their inclusion and exclusion(olive (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Again: What source has been excluded improperly from this article?   Will Beback    talk    00:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "The companies themselves conduct all of the research and reviews up until the time a drug is released. After that they pay for 60% of the cost of reviews." This is not true. Most research is actually funded by the US government through the NIH. Pharmaceutical companies do almost no primary research and only jump on board once most of the bench top research is already completed. They make there research budgets look huge by combining much of what we would consider advertising into it. But this is off course another topic entirely. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * From Time magazine (August 23, 2010 issue, p 26): "(The FDA) relies on drug companies to perform all premarket testing on drugs for safety and efficacy. And it relies on industry 'user fees' for 65% of its budget for post-market monitoring of the drugs it approves . . . . " TimidGuy (talk) 12:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure that is the regulatory body. But this does not represent the research being performed. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc, it says the drug companies do the testing for efficacy. Here's info supporting another of my points above, from Newsweek, January 29, 1010: "In 1998 Moore used the Freedom of Information Act to pry such data from the FDA. The total came to 47 company-sponsored studies—on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Serzone, and Celexa—that Kirsch and colleagues then pored over. (As an aside, it turned out that about 40 percent of the clinical trials had never been published. That is significantly higher than for other classes of drugs, says Lisa Bero of the University of California, San Francisco; overall, 22 percent of clinical trials of drugs are not published. "By and large," says Kirsch, "the unpublished studies were those that had failed to show a significant benefit from taking the actual drug.")" TimidGuy (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thus we have the effectiveness of antidepressants are none to minimal in those with mild or moderate depression but significant in those with very severe disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The topic of this thread is (more or less) how to present independent versus non-independent research. The news magazine coverage of FDA trials doesn't seem to shed light on that issue. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that TM is a drug regulated by the FDA. While the details of drug studies are interesting to those who find drug studies interesting, they are not directly relevant to this discussion. The Time article seems to portray the current method of testing drugs to be faulty, so that may not be a model we'd want to follow.    Will Beback    talk    22:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

To start the discussion again:
 * Actually, the topic of this thread is what is independent vs nonindependent research. I assume you'd like to continue this discussion here instead of below.
 * Per Wikipedia what is independent research? Where and how is it defined? (olive (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC))


 * For the third time: Wikipedia:Party and person    Will Beback    talk    23:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This seems like a definition of "third party source" not "independent" with respect to research. We need to establish clearly what is ment by the term "independent" in text of this and other TM related articles. --BwB (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In your mind, how are "third party" and "independent" separate concepts? To me, they seem like the same thing.   Will Beback    talk    23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally, the word appears in a recent news article:

It's not just us Wikipedia editors who've noted this kind of thing.  Will Beback   talk    10:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is exactly the case. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a red herring. Looks as if a sourceis being used as if its truth instead of just a source,  to trump Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and you're using those/that source/sources to support your views. Do Wikipedia editors trump the juries who have reviewed the studies, the publications. The opinions of 340 juries are trumped by a few Wikipedia editors? Is that how Wikipedia works? This is an Interesting position and frankly pretty difficult to understand. We probably need outside input on this. I don't have much else to say, and I don't see that personal opinions or views on the research carry weight. (olive (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Can you show where juries have declared that studies conducted by MUM faculty are "independent"?   Will Beback    talk    23:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If  the 340 studies showed bias they wouldn't have been published in peer reviewed journals, there wouldn't be repeated NIH grants.(olive (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC))
 * We're talking about the term "independent", not about bias per se. Again, who says that the peer review process makes a paper written by MUM faculty members independent?   Will Beback    talk    03:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Order of paras in Health Outcomes section
I have re-ordered the paragraphs to put the most recent findings first, consistent with the ordering in the Mental function and criminal rehab sections. In describing scientific findings in kind of context, this 'most recent to the top' ordering makes most sense--the most up-to-date findings are reported first. Early morning person (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The usual order of things in Wikipedia is chronological, but this isn't a history. It probably makes more sense to group studies by the effect they investigate then by chronology (either forward or reverse).   Will Beback    talk    02:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The effects being investigated here are quite varied, though most of it is connected in some way to hypertension--either reduction of same or the effects of meditation on the health of hypertensive patients. I see no reason to put the 2007 findings first, inconsistent with the style adopted in the other sections.Early morning person (talk) 14:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One usually puts independent studies of better quality before non independent studies of lesser quality. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense. I've restored the previous order of paras. Since I'm new to this topic, I'd rather discuss it here than go back and forth in the article itself. I'm sure we can work it out.Early morning person (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * While I think EMP is right to discuss this here...I don't see what criteria Doc is using to make what seem to be personal judgements on what are the "best "studies. "Best" is a matter for discussion not one editor's opinion. And there's that word "independent" again. Perhaps we can get down to a discussion that deals with defining this word per Wikipedia. I believe its being used here inappropriately then applied to make judgments on research.(olive (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * You started a thread on that above. See . Let's try to keep threads on-topic.   Will Beback    talk    22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said. Same thing comes up in discussion after discussion. Here it is again. "One usually puts independent studies of better quality before non independent studies of lesser quality." Where would editors like to deal with this, here or in another thread. I'm happy to continue this in either place. We should clear this up. Doing so may make editing a lot easier.(olive (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Since you've responded here, I'll repeat this here. I've pointed you to a relevant Wikipedia definition:  Wikipedia:Party and person Is that unclear?    Will Beback    talk    22:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm responding to you. I'm aware of what a third party source is. Peer review and publication, and the reviews that have been under discussion are not published by the scientists or researchers who did the research, but are independent. What seems to be unclear is the interpretation of independent by some editors. I'm happy to go with this definition as I have been in the past. (olive (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Let's say I write my memoirs and get them published by Random House. Just because that publisher is unaffiliated with me doesn't make the book an independent source about my life. If either the author or the publisher is connected to the topic then the source is not independent.   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how independent is defined per research and per Wikipedia.(olive (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC))
 * Please explain.   Will Beback    talk    22:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

A study

 * Neurobiological research suggests that TM may make the experience of pain less stressful. A brain imaging study on practitioners of Transcendental Meditation compared to a control group showed that TM decreases activity in the thalamus, prefrontal cortex, and anterior cingulate cortex in response to pain. The results suggest that while TM doesn't reduce pain, it reduces the emotional distress associated with the experience of pain, resulting in greater tolerance. 

Is there some reasons why we're not including a citation to the study? Who conducted it, and when? Is it Orme-Johnson DW, Schneider RH, Son YD, Nidich S, Cho Z-H. Neuroimaging of meditation’s effect on brain reactivity to pain". NeuroReport 2006 17(12):1359-1363?   Will Beback    talk    12:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's a reason: MEDRS says to cite research reviews. And yes, that's the study. TimidGuy (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt we should cite the review for our summary, but we should also describe the study with a little more detail, such as the connection of the lead authors to TM. OJ is a notable researcher and we should introduce and link to him on the text at some point. This may be the best place.   Will Beback    talk    12:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? --BwB (talk) 12:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not?   Will Beback    talk    23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the ref. I had no clue how to treat a book chapter. You're a pro. Am really trying to do it right. It seemed a little odd to only mention David OJ, since there were 5 authors — especially since two of the collaborators are leading neuroscientists and fMRI specialists, and since it was conducted in their lab at UC Irvine. And I agree that the topic sentence wasn't needed. TimidGuy (talk) 12:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see any evidence that YD Son is a leading expert, but Cho certainly is. There is a reprint of a 2003 article from Radiology Today discussing the then-ongoing study. Apparently Cho went to MUM to make a presentation about a study he'd done on acupuncture, and that led to this study. Reading the study, I'm still surprised at how easily the authors discount the possibility of expectation bias or self-selection bias. But if we stick with what the reliable secondary sources say we don't need to get into that. DocJames has had concerns about using alternative medical sources. I don't know if Handbook of Integrative Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Behavioral Medicine: Perspectives, Practices, and Research  qualifies. It's interesting to note that the study was funded, at least partly, using that NIH grant. The grant was used to pay for the TM training of at least 12 study subjects, meaning that something like $30,000 of it went back to the TM movement in tuition.    Will Beback    talk    23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great article in Radiology Today. Thanks for finding that. TimidGuy (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS
Would like to highlight this paragraph from our guideline: Use independent sources

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

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a particular point you are trying to make here, Doc? --BwB (talk) 11:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Doc can speak for himself, but I'll note that User:Tijfo098 made the explicit point at at AE that ESL would be justifiably topic banned for, inter alia, "general absurd [wiki]lawyering e.g. regarding the word "independently"". It is disappointing to read the above discussion on "independent" replowing the same ground after such an incisive assessment  at AE, and the ensuing topic ban of ESL. The continued argument over identifying idependent studies as being independent, and the question "what's your point?" reads like a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Fladrif (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear from Doc exactly why he is bringing this point to our attention now. --BwB (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty obvious. "Use independent sources" is the title of the paragraph. The issue of independent sources has been a topic on this talk page.   Will Beback    talk    00:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Doc didn't see that I had posted the same quote from WP:MEDRS above and discussed what I believe it means. I'll repost that part of the discussion here:(olive (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

Independent as it has come to be used in the TM articles is a bit of a red herring, and is being used incorrectly. Per WP:MEDRS:

'''Whenever writing about medical claims not supported by mainstream research, it is vital that third-party, independent sources be used. Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions, but extreme care should be taken when using such sources lest the more controversial aspects of their opinions be taken at face value or, worse, asserted as fact. If the independent sources discussing a medical subject are of low quality, then it is likely that the subject itself is not notable enough to have its own article or relevant enough to be mentin other articles.'''

Non independent would be as the quote says: "Sources written and reviewed by the advocates of such marginal ideas can be used to describe personal opinions." Reviews we are using are not "written" by researchers associated with TM. if they were I would agree we shouldn't use them as sources. Peer review, and publication in reputable journals ensures oversight. Reviews provide yet another and even more stringent level of oversight. Most researchers have biases or they wouldn't be working in specifically chosen fields, the oversight of peer review and quality of publication counter those biases. Using the term "TM researchers"as we have in several places is not good because its not accurate. Many of these studies were done in collaboration with other researchers at other universities so an all encompassing phrase like TM researchers just doesn't work. WP:MEDRS comes into play when dealing with health claims, so on much of this article its not applicable. I would see this article as a place that gives a good overview of what's been done in TM research including sections on opinions on the research based on academic analysis of the work, and another separate section on opinions that are based more in popular sources and press. As well it could include research institutions and possibly a short section on the researchers themselves.


 * Rainforth, Maxwell; RH, Schneider; Nidich, SI; Gaylord-King, C; Salerno, JW; Anderson, JW (December 2007). "Stress Reduction Programs in Patients with Elevated Blood Pressure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis". Current Hypertension Reports 9 (6): 520–528. doi:10.1007/s11906-007-0094-3. .
 * This is a review written by MUM faculty members that makes health claims. However it looks like we don't use it as a source for any claims, so that's OK.   Will Beback    talk    04:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is this supported in the ref
A 2009 review of 16 pediatric studies on meditation done in a school setting that included 6 studies on Transcendental Meditation reported that randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation found a reduction in blood pressure and  A randomized controlled trial on psychosocial and behavioral outcomes that compared TM to health education found that the TM group had decreased absentee periods, rule infractions, and suspension days, but found no difference in the TM and control groups in regard to tardiness, lifestyle, or stress. The review concluded that sitting meditation "seems to be an effective intervention in the treatment of physiologic, psychosocial, and behavioral conditions among youth." Of the 16 studies included in the review, 5 were uncontrolled. The review said that because of limitations of the research, larger-scale and more demographically diverse studies need to be done to clarify treatment efficacy.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Of the 4 studies that examined SBP, there was consistent evidence that meditation decreased SBP relative to controls.40–42,44 Decreases in DBP were not consistently found. Two studies identified marginal DBP reductions in the meditation group relative to controls,40,41 and 2 studies found no significant difference between groups.42,44" from page 535. And from page 538 "Of the 9 studies that measured changes in social/behavioral problems, 7 showed meditation to significantly improve absentee periods,45 rule infractions,45 externalizing problems, 47,50–54 attentional problems,48,51,53 self-esteem,54 and suspension days45 that result from behavioral problems". TimidGuy (talk) 12:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is for meditation generally not TM. Where does it specifically mention TM? This is not a page about meditation generally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * James. TM is clearly a part of this review. Maybe a closer look would clear things up here.(olive (talk) 20:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC))


 * Many scholars discuss TM along with other similar techniques and movements, then draw conclusions about the group. That seems to be what's happening here. We could take a "hard line" and only allow references to text that are specifically referring to TM, or we could follow a more liberal policy of allowing generalizations which include TM. This is probably going to come up again and again. We should endeavor to be as consistent as possible.   Will Beback    talk    23:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If someone could cut and paste the text here that might clear things up. I do not see what supports the above assertion. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Am busy. Will try to do paste additional info tomorrow. The above text should suffice for BP. Cited studies 40-42 in the quoted text are randomized controlled trials on TM. TimidGuy (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The text does not say "TM" it says meditation. So no it is does not suffice for BP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Quoting the table on page 536
Study Design: RCT: TM (n = 17) vs health education control (n = 18)
 * 40. Barnes VA, Treiber FA, Davis H. Impact of transcendental meditation on cardiovascular function at rest and during acute stress in adolescents with high normal blood pressure. J Psychosom Res. 2001;51(4):597– 605

General Findings: TM group decreased from before to after test in SBP, HR, and CO during acute stress simulation, and in SBP to a social stressor compared to controls; marginal differences in DBP

Study Design: RCT: TM (n = 50) vs health education control (n = 50)
 * 41. Barnes VA, Treiber FA, Johnson MH. Impact of transcendental meditation on ambulatory blood pressure in African-American adolescents. Am J Hypertens. 2004;17(4):366 –369

General Findings: TM group decreased daytime SBP and marginally decreased DBP compared to controls; no significant differences in HR between Tx groups

Study Design: RCT: TM (n=57) vs health education control (n=54)
 * 43. Barnes VA, Malhotra S, Treiber FA. Impact of transcendental meditation on vascular function in African American adolescents [abstract]. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:A31

General Findings: TM group increased EDAD compared to controls, indicating improved endothelial function

Study Design: RCT: TM (n = 25) vs health education control (n = 20)
 *  45. Barnes VA, Bauza LB, Treiber FA. Impact of stress reduction on negative school behavior in adolescents. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:10

General Findings: TM group decreased absentee periods, rule infractions, and suspension days resulting from behavior problems compared to controls; females performing TM decreased anger compared to control females (not found for males); no difference in tardiness, lifestyle, or stress between groups

Quoting the narrative summary on page 535
"Of the 4 studies that examined SBP, there was consistent evidence that meditation decreased SBP relative to controls.40–42,44 Decreases in DBP were not consistently found. Two studies identified marginal DBP reductions in the meditation group relative to controls,40,41 and 2 studies found no significant difference between groups.42,44"

Summary
Studies 40 and 41 were on TM and found decreased systolic blood pressure compared to health education, and found marginal reductions in diastolic blood pressure.

Quoting from the narrative summary on page 535
"A single study found that meditation positively affected EDAD, which is an indicator of endothelial dysfunction,43"

Summary
Study 43 was on Transcendental Meditation and showed an improvement in vascular function relative to health education.

Quoting the narrative summary on page 538
"Of the 9 studies that measured changes in social/behavioral problems, 7 showed meditation to significantly improve absentee periods,45 rule infractions,45 externalizing problems, 47,50–54 attentional problems,48,51,53 self-esteem,54 and suspension days45 that result from behavioral problems."

Summary
Study 45 was on Transcendental Meditation and found improved absentee periods, rule infractions, and suspension days resulting from behavioral problems.

I think the text that was deleted was an accurate representation of the source. TimidGuy (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is interesting will they include studies on TM they do not mention TM by name and keep the conclusions related to meditation in general. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

General conclusions
Are these comments about TM in particular or sitting meditation in general? Were any of the five uncontrolled studies about TM?  Will Beback   talk    02:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The review concluded that sitting meditation "seems to be an effective intervention in the treatment of physiologic, psychosocial, and behavioral conditions among youth." Of the 16 studies included in the review, 5 were uncontrolled. The review said that because of limitations of the research, larger-scale and more demographically diverse studies need to be done to clarify treatment efficacy.
 * These comments are a summary of the 16 studies, which included 4 randomized controlled trials on TM. The reported findings on TM included physiologic, pyshosocial, and behavioral conditions, as can be seen above. The review also reported an uncontrolled study on TM and ADHD, but I haven't included that here because it's a pilot study (and self-identifies as such). TimidGuy (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * So it's OK to include scholarly conclusions about a group that includes TM, not just observations about TM individually?   Will Beback    talk    12:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Will. What do you think? --BwB (talk) 12:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that in the past editors argued for using a restrictive, conservative approach which is different from the approach implied here, if I understand correctly. That's why I'm asking.   Will Beback    talk    12:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If only one of the uncontrolled studies looked at TM, then why are we mentioning the other four? What does that sentence add to the reader's understanding of TM?   Will Beback    talk    00:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe Doc wrote that. Seems like it could e removed. If we use a restrictive, conservative approach, then how would we deal with Ospina, which only makes general statements about the quality of meditation research but has no statement specific to TM research? TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I do not believe I added the above. Ospina did seperate metaanalysis of TM research which they present separately. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who added it. The editing probably happened back in January or February 2010. The issue now is that the sentences make two assertions: in the first it lumps together TM with other techniques and makes an assertion about the set, and in the second it discusses research quality without making clear to what extent it is referring to TM studies. I think that both of these can be fixed. In the latter case, we can pin down how many of the studies were on TM. So we might get something like "Of the 16 studies included in the review, 5 were uncontrolled, including 2 out of 6 studies on TM." In the former case, I suppose we could say something like, "While it did not make any specific conclusions about TM, it found that sitting meditation in general 'seems to be...'". Does that sound like an acceptable strategy?   Will Beback    talk    21:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe could agree with you first suggestion (not yet decided) but completely disagree with your second suggestion. Since it did not make conclusions about TM let's not include it at all. --BwB (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Should really be moved to the page on meditation rather than here. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Will, the second instance sounds good: saying that there's no specific conclusion about TM. Can we do the same for Ospina in regard to quality? In the first instance, note that there are 5 studies on TM. A sixth study, which is a randomized controlled trial on ADHD, used a technique modeled after TM, but a footnote makes clear that it's not TM. I looked at the study: the technique is quite different from TM. So there are 4 RCTs on TM and one pilot study. We could say, "Of the 16 studies in the review, there were four randomized controlled trials and an uncontrolled pilot study on TM." TimidGuy (talk) 12:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it is good to give the specifics. But still wondering why we want to include study that makes no conclusions about TM? --BwB (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes conclusions about sitting meditation, of which TM is one variety, based on papers that include TM studies. It doesn't mean the conclusions are invalid or irrelevant, just that we need to make clear to readers which parts are specific to TM and which are generic to sitting meditation. It's relevant that TM is not the only effective technique, but rather shares similar effectiveness with similar techniques. If we're writing about a drug which costs $1500 then it's relevant to note that studies find a $100 drug to be as effective.   Will Beback    talk    23:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the above cited text is replaced by this:
 * ''Research reviews published in 2009 and 2010 reported on several randomized controlled trials on Transcendental Meditation that found an improvement in blood pressure and cardiovascular function compared to health education. In addition, they reported on a randomized controlled trial on psychosocial and behavioral outcomes that compared TM to health education and found that the TM group had decreased absentee periods, rule infractions, and suspension days, but found no difference in the TM and control groups in regard to tardiness, lifestyle, or stress. The 2010 review concluded that "Studies of TM’s effect in youth on cardiovascular risk, cognition, affect, and behavior are promising, but larger, more definitive comparative effectiveness research is needed. said that because of limitations of the research, larger-scale and more demographically diverse studies need to be done to clarify treatment efficacy."

Any comments from the editors?  Will Beback   talk    11:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR?
A 1999 paper by Lachaux et al. suggests that EEG coherence may be a less useful measurement since it does not separate the effects of amplitude and phase in the interrelations between two EEG signals.

This seems to have no mention of TM research... not sure what its doing in this article. It should be removed. If there are no objections, in a few days I'll remove it.(olive (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC))


 * This whole section seems to include citations to papers that don't meet WP:MEDRS.   Will Beback    talk    01:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This article is about the totality of the TM research, and needs to include all relevant content which gives information on the research to date that has been done on the technique. As well, the section is on "brain" research and is not making health claims even of this were a different kind of article. The article as is, is still very incomplete. (olive (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * EEG measurements that show neuronal hypersynchrony are similar to those found in epilepsy, leading to concerns about the potential risk of kindling of epilepsy from repetitive Transcendental Meditation...the authors.... found meditation to be a possible antiepileptic therapy.
 * I think epilepsy is a health-related issue. Do you think seizures are not a medical matter?   Will Beback    talk    05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My point stands...This article is about the totality of the research.... I'm not sure how to deal with "health related" studies so that they can be included but don't seem to offer advice which is the concern of WP:MEDRS. Any thoughts on that? (olive (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure why the definition of a reliable source would change because the word "research" is in the title. The only exception is that we can include some studies of historical interest which wouldn't otherwise qualify. The Walton/Benson study, for example.    Will Beback    talk    06:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Lachaux shouldn't be in the article and had myself been intending to suggest that it be removed. TimidGuy (talk) 11:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no change in defining reliable source per this article, as there can be no change in how WP:MEDRS is applied or misapplied. This article is about the research itself rather than using the research  as a source. So yes, having an article named TM research is different than using the research itself as a source for a  claim. Wallace/Benson is of historical interest, and other research may have a place in this articles in terms of understanding the extent of the research, its history, where it was done, who did it, how it was funded, which was peer reviewed which wasn't, response to the research....and so on. This article is only in its beginning stages of development. Lots to be done. Lots to be added. Lots of input needed from all editors interested.(olive (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Agree with this assessment, Olive. Thanks. --BwB (talk) 19:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever disagreed? ;)
 * Yes. :-( --BwB (talk) 14:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree we can include a section on the history of research, and use secondary sources to describe thr pros and cons of the research, so long as we avoid presenting the research findings in a way that would be incompatible with MEDRS. Numerous sources have written about the research of the 1970s.   Will Beback    talk    22:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese studies
The details of these studies are a bit vague. Maybe the citations could be moved around to make it clearer. Who conducted these studies? Who reviewed them? We should be attributing opinions to the reviewers, not to the reviews. I've added a couple of {who} tags to indicate where the information is particularly lacking.  Will Beback   talk    11:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the problem with this. The reviewers write the reviews of the studies so...Maybe you could explain more, and I'll try and take a look later today or tomorrow unless someone gets to it before I do.(olive (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC))
 * My question is basically this: who wrote the review and who conducted the studies?   Will Beback    talk    22:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The refs say who wrote the reviews. The studies were by So Kam Tim and David Orme-Johnson. TimidGuy (talk) 12:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've edited the material to make the authorship, etc, clearer. It was not apparent, for example, that all three studies were conducted by the same person as part of a dissertation. I think we need to be more careful when using non-independent studies, even when they've been reviewed glowingly, to avoid misrepresenting them to readers.   Will Beback    talk    07:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I represented the sources accurately. No secondary source has felt a need to characterize the studies the way you have. Also, many published studies and books are from dissertations. I've never once seen a research review that explicitly says that. Even the published version of a dissertation will not typically say that it's based on a dissertation. I think it's fine to represent the authors as affiliated with MUM, but beyond that is reaching — and far beyond the sources. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't add "dissertation" to the article, but I think it's relevant to say it was done by a graduate student at MUM, and that all three studies were done by the same person. I also think that omitting the MUM connection is misleading.   Will Beback    talk    11:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Moved here until ref provided
" Research reviews and medical textbooks say that the Transcendental Meditation technique (TM) is the most studied form of meditation, and that it has specific effects on human physiology. These reviews and textbooks differ with regard to their assessment of research quality and on the results of practicing TM. Research reviews say that more research is needed to firmly establish the effects on mental and physical health." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR
"Medical journals that have published the research include Archives of Internal Medicine (published by the American Medical Association) and Hypertension (published by the American Heart Association)." Yes these journals have published research however what is the implied significance? This presentation is WP:OR Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No significance is implied, no conclusion was drawn. Just the facts were stated. You deleted reliably sourced material. TimidGuy (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I have never seen other pages list where info on the topic at hand was published and have edited over 5000 articles. It is also not appropriate here especially not in the lead. This is a marketing technique used by the TM industry. They attempt to associate themselves with important scientific institutions. And yes we have refs for that. And yes this would be appropriate in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why the Revert in Research Quality section?
Doc J has reverted the following addition to this section, following the 1st sentence. "However, Phil Goldberg in his 2010 book American Veda, in reviewing the state of the research on TM, says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies "rise to professional standards." The first sentence reads, "Popular media and scholars have criticized the quality of the research, though some have identified selected studies that are high quality. According to The Jerusalem Post, The Canadian, and the Encyclopedia of Occultism & Parapsychology, some of the research has been "criticized for bias and a lack of scientific evidence",[50] for "methodological flaws, vague definitions, and loose statistical controls",[51] and for "failing to conduct double-blind experiments" and for "influencing test results with the prejudice of the tester". Doc J explained the revert on my talk page as follows:"Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. . . " I fail to see why the source I have used, a book published by a major company, is any less acceptable than the other sources cited before and after the reverted sentence.


 * It was stated "says that most of the experts he spoke to said that the bulk of the 600 TM studies" My issue is with specifically "Most experts he spoke too". This is below class five evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You have reverted reliably sourced content. In terms of the arbitration, this is not acceptable. I would point out that the topic of this paragraph is the general response to the research, quoting a wide variety of sources. The sentence I added is from a book by a reputable publisher, and is as adequately sourced as most of the other material in this paragraph.


 * Therefore, I have restored this sentence. I suggest that you have two choices at this point: take out all the material in this section that is referenced to sources that are not strictly scientific or leave mine in. Otherwise you are obviously attempting to impose a double-standard. However, I will revert you only once.Early morning person (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are we saying: His comment on the research appears in a footnote. I'd hardly call it a "detailed history of meditation research". Do we report on the sentence that is footnoted, the one which says the TM studies have been "greeted with an extra measure of skepticism" because they are conducted by TM-affiliated scientists? How about its statement, in the same paragraph, that Benson found the same relaxation response can be achieved without TM? I think Goldberg has a lot of interesting things to say about TM and related practices, but I'm concerned that we're not summarizing the source correctly.  Will Beback   talk    08:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * However, Philip Goldberg, in a detailed history of meditation research in his 2010 book, ...


 * In response to your thoughtful points:
 * 1) I don’t mean to split hairs, but Goldberg says that what has been greeted with skepticism from some quarters is research on TM by TM scientists—not TM research in general. Important difference. True, a lot of TM research has been done by TM scientists, but a lot also has been done by researchers at other universities. Goldberg does call attention to scientific skepticism, briefly, but we already have several other sources quoted in this vein in this section.
 * 2) Goldberg says that Benson reasoned that TM “was not the only way” to produce the physiology of the meditative state. He doesn’t say that Benson found this to be so. In any case, Goldberg devotes quite a lot of ink to critiquing Benson for coming to the conclusion that Benson's RR technique was the same as TM, e.g., “Benson was selling Tang and calling it fresh-squeezed orange juice.” See pages 290 – 292.
 * 3) it is scattered around the book in three different places, but Goldberg actually does give a lot of detail on TM research, as well as Benson’s relax’n response technique, and to some extent meditation research in general. See pages 163-166, 289-293, and 297-299.Early morning person (talk) 19:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your "detailed" answer but calling Goldberg's discussion "detailed" is a value judgment, also known as original research. We don't need to say that and we shouldn't. In a section below, user:Bwb suggests we should include more about the research conducted by Wallace and Benson. Maybe it's time to create a section on historical research, where we can cover more fully Benson's findings, and the views of Goldberg and others on that research.   Will Beback    talk    20:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, I see your point about "detailed," and I have struck that word.Early morning person (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Content included in article

 * I have always felt that this article should also somehow describe the progression of research on TM over 40 odd years since Robert Keith Wallace published the first research in the 1960s. What was looked at first, what did these early studies tell us, how were these followed up? When did the NIH first start funding TM research, etc. I think the reader would be interested in the development of the research. --BwB (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Wallace first published in the early 1970s, IIRC. I agree that it would be suitable in this article to have a section on historic research for which we can find secondary sources. That would certainly include Wallace and Benson's studies. Later studies received much less attention, but we might find some that were covered. We would need to present the publication of the studies from a historical POV, rather than reporting their findings in detail, since much of the material probably doesn't meet WP:MEDRS.    Will Beback    talk    20:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Meta-analysis of over 100 studies

 *  A meta-analysis of over 100 studies found that relaxation techniques reduce trait anxiety and that Transcendental Meditation had a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques.   

It's not clear from the five citations which one goes to the meta-analysis. The first one: Larzelere & Wiseman 2002? Also, do the other four references refer to that study? Do they say anything interesting or just mention its existence?  Will Beback   talk    21:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't want to be strident, but it's been several days since I asked about this. Yesterday, I posted a specific request on the talk of the user who added it. If no response is forthcoming I'll remove the material from the article pending the hoped-for discussion here. I don't want to do that as there may be a simple explanation for this, but it may also have been a slip-of-the-key. (I've done those myself!) 11:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note on my talk page. I've added some material to clarify and included some of the interesting information. This meta-analysis was removed from the TM article a year ago, with the edit summary saying it was a primary source. So I've found many secondary sources that discuss it and used those. TimidGuy (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * After your edit the text now says:
 *  According to research reviews, a "thorough and well-designed" meta-analysis by Kenneth Eppley of Stanford University that looked at over 100 studies found that relaxation techniques reduce trait anxiety and that Transcendental Meditation had a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques (0.70 compared to 0.39). The meta-analysis calculated effect sizes "by population, age, sex, experimental design, duration, hours of treatment, pretest anxiety, demand characteristics, experimenter attitude, type of publication, and attribution."
 * However there's no citation to a study by Eppley, so you really haven't answered my question. And which paper is the source of the two quotations? What do the extra sources say about the metastudy?    Will Beback    talk    20:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The material has been in the article for nearly a week without a proper citation, despite repeated requests. Do we not know the title or date of this study?   Will Beback    talk    21:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a citation. But I don't understand. Eppley was deleted as being a primary source, so per MEDRS, I found secondary sources (research reviews) that included it and cited those. Why were those not proper citations? They generally simply repeat the main findings of the meta-analysis: that relaxation techniques in general reduce anxiety and that TM in particular has a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques. Two of the sources give a bit more detail, especially Freeman. TimidGuy (talk) 12:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure why that was so hard. Now that I know what we're talking about I've looked in the archives. The most recent discussions were at Talk:Transcendental Meditation/Archive 32 and Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 71. The objections do not appear to have been about it being a primary source, but rather about the fact that it's so old and predates modern standards for meta analyses. Can you please review those two threads and explain why you've reinserted the study? What has changed since July 2010?   Will Beback    talk    05:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's where Doc deleted this meta-analysis, saying in his edit summary that it's a primary source. Since July I've done more research and have found that this meta-analysis has been cited hundreds of times, including many standard medical books and textbooks. (Search on "Eppley Abrams Shear" in Google Books.) If there is a concern whether this meta-analysis is dated, then that should be put to rest by the fact that it continues to be referenced in current research reviews and medical books. We shouldn't second guess these reliable sources, and there's no Wikipedia policy or guideline that disallows their use. TimidGuy (talk) 11:40, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a 2006 Cochrane review and therefore we have a better analysis of the effectiveness of meditation / TM for anxiety disorder. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Using a 1989 meta analysis to contradict a 2006 Cochrane review
Here is the 1989 review

Here is the block of text for context:

"A 2006 review by the Cochrane collabortion found that there was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effectiveness of meditation for anxiety disorders. The review found that, as of 2006, two randomized controlled trials had been done on this topic, one of which was on TM, and concluded that meditation is equivalent to relaxation therapy in reducing anxiety. According to research reviews, a 'thorough and well-designed' meta-analysis by Kenneth Eppley of Stanford University that looked at over 100 studies found that relaxation techniques reduce trait anxiety and that Transcendental Meditation had a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques (0.70 compared to 0.39). The meta-analysis calculated effect sizes 'by population, age, sex, experimental design, duration, hours of treatment, pretest anxiety, demand characteristics, experimenter attitude, type of publication, and attribution.'"

Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * TG and I have been discussing this at above. It looks like there were concerns about it last summer that led to it being deleted.     Will Beback    talk    05:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Present best information first
We should have the best quality information first and follow this by less important information. Thus the conclusions of independent systematic reviews should be presented first. The amount of money the NIH spends says nothing about research conclusions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * We should adhere to WP:LEAD: "the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences." Why is TM research notable? Because one meta-analysis of 5 studies found no difference compared to health education, and one review that looked at 1980 study found no difference compared to relaxation? No, it's notable because there has been 40 years of research, with findings in many different areas of research, findings that have been widely reported in the mainstream media, in research reviews, and in medical books. The consensus among all of these is that TM has beneficial effects. Even Ospina said that it lowers blood pressure, and even Cochrance 2006 found that it reduces anxiety. TimidGuy (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * DJ is naturally concerned, as an MD, with finding and bringing to the fore the highest quality and most relevant research findings. He has contributed some very useful information on these pages. However, the beginning section of this article is in clear violation of the Wiki policies and guidelines on writing articles and should be adjusted immediately. In addition to WP:LEAD, Wiki “Writing Better Articles” and “Article Development” both state that articles must begin with an intro or lead that gives an overview of the topic. As is stated in the latter, “Remember that, although you will be familiar with the subject you are writing about, readers of Wikipedia may not be, so it is important to establish the context of your article’s subject early on.” Let’s get a little more reader-friendly here. Early morning person (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be rewritten entirely.   Will Beback    talk    20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

In a 2007 government report, a meta-analysis of
I realise that there is only one world government, but for the sake of form we usually pretend that there are many. So, which one is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks :-) Good point. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick service, thank you. While I'm here quibbling, According to research reviews, a "thorough and well-designed"... is a touch vague, I'm not sure what it means. It seems to be sourced to a book; is that a common way of describing such books?

And since I'm still here, a larger effect size than other relaxation techniques (0.70 compared to 0.39) means nothing to the general reader: is it some generally accepted medical-type thingy, a percentage, a fraction or wot? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Being discussed here and here. I BTW agree with you. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the various concerns, and the lack of an answer to what some of it actually *means", I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving on: Popular media and scholars have criticized the quality of the research... somewhat concerns me. If we're talking about assessment of research quality, we shouldn't really give much weight to the popular media. I wouldn't in any other area of science. We should be concerned with scholars (assuming enough of them have bothered) William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Connolley that we shouldn't give much weight to the popular media when assessing the quality of TM research. --BwB (talk) 17:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree especially as we have a couple of recent reviews which cover the topic of quality. Some of this text started out in a section on characterization of TM. Not sure how it ended up here but needs improving. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I also agree that we shouldn't be using popular media as sources regarding the quality of research. It appears that we have consensus for removing these popular media sources. This was also supported at RSN, and is supported by MEDRS. TimidGuy (talk) 12:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree with removing all media coverage of research, but it may be better included in the technique article as part of the marketing section instead of in this article.   Will Beback    talk    22:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Based on this edit, it appears that there is not a consensus to only use peer-reviewed commentaries on research quality.   Will Beback    talk    23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)