Yes, best to read only what is marketed from the health food industry. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
good point, noozguru, but now I will need an even bigger crowbar for the door of my mind when reading something from AMA! On Thursday, March 20, 2014 11:02 AM, Bhairitu <noozguru@...> wrote: Let's not forget that the AMA stands in the way of the US having Single Payer Healthcare, the kind you tout so much about being available in Europe. They stand in the way of training more doctors. One thing we can say about the AMA: it's all about money. Maybe they're really the American Money Association. :-D On 03/20/2014 07:49 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: From: e Long <sharelong60@...> mailto:sharelong60@... To: "FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com" mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2014 3:32 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] JAMA on meditation Michael, the AMA also says that GMO labeling is not necessary. Thus I will look askance at anything they publish, no matter how scientific and objective it appears to be. In other words, you reserve the right to disregard anything said by an individual or group of individuals if they say something you disagree with, because this disagreement indicates that they are not trustworthy, "no matter how scientific and objective it seems to be." Did I get that right? You realize, do you not, that this is exactly what your stalkers are trying to do with you on this forum. They go out of their way to portray you as stupid and clueless, in the hope that other people will start to write off anything you say as something they should "look askance" on. Especially liking one of the people they dislike. With other people, they try to portray them as liars, with the same intent. Is this really the approach you wish to embrace? It seems to me that a more intelligent approach would be to judge each post or piece of data that appears before you on its own merits, regardless of who said it. The alternative seems to indicate a willingness to revere cult apologetic tactics and adopt them as your own. On Thursday, March 20, 2014 9:24 AM, Michael Jackson <mjackson74@...> mailto:mjackson74@... wrote: Meditation Programs for Psychological Stress and Well-being A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Madhav Goyal, MD, MPH1; Sonal Singh, MD, MPH1; Erica M. S. Sibinga, MD, MHS2; Neda F. Gould, PhD3; Anastasia Rowland-Seymour, MD1; Ritu Sharma, BSc4; Zackary Berger, MD, PhD1; Dana Sleicher, MS, MPH3; David D. Maron, MHS4; Hasan M. Shihab, MBChB, MPH4; Padmini D. Ranasinghe, MD, MPH1; Shauna Linn, BA4; Shonali Saha, MD2; Eric B. Bass, MD, MPH1,4; Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, PhD3 JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):357-368. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13018. ABSTRACT Importance Many people meditate to reduce psychological stress and stress-related health problems. To counsel people appropriately, clinicians need to know what the evidence says about the health benefits of meditation. Objective To determine the efficacy of meditation programs in improving stress-related outcomes (anxiety, depression, stress/distress, positive mood, mental health–related quality of life, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, pain, and weight) in diverse adult clinical populations. Evidence Review We identified randomized clinical trials with active controls for placebo effects through November 2012 from MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, PsycArticles, Scopus, CINAHL, AMED, the Cochrane Library, and hand searches. Two independent reviewers screened citations and extracted data. We graded the strength of evidence using 4 domains (risk of bias, precision, directness, and consistency) and determined the magnitude and direction of effect by calculating the relative difference between groups in change from baseline. When possible, we conducted meta-analyses using standardized mean differences to obtain aggregate estimates of effect size with 95% confidence intervals. Findings After reviewing 18 753 citations, we included 47 trials with 3515 participants. Mindfulness meditation programs had moderate evidence of improved anxiety (effect size, 0.38 [95% CI, 0.12-0.64] at 8 weeks and 0.22 [0.02-0.43] at 3-6 months), depression (0.30 [0.00-0.59] at 8 weeks and 0.23 [0.05-0.42] at 3-6 months), and pain (0.33 [0.03- 0.62]) and low evidence of improved stress/distress and mental health–related quality of life. We found low evidence of no effect or insufficient evidence of any effect of meditation programs on positive mood, attention, substance use, eating habits, sleep, and weight. We found no evidence that meditation programs were better than any active treatment (ie, drugs, exercise, and other behavioral therapies). Conclusions and Relevance Clinicians should be aware that meditation programs can result in small to moderate reductions of multiple negative dimensions of psychological stress. Thus, clinicians should be prepared to talk with their patients about the role that a meditation program could have in addressing psychological stress. Stronger study designs are needed to determine the effects of meditation programs in improving the positive dimensions of mental health and stress-related behavior.
