4 ms·

> You'd be right that is not the direct result of mindfulness or meditation > Vipassana retreat enforces a no drugs an no medication policy it can occur This

> You'd be right that is not the direct result of mindfulness or meditation > Vipassana retreat enforces a no drugs an no medication policy it can occur This is exactly the point I've been making, that the meditation itself is not to blame for these issues. Thanks for the other links, I shall read them. Regarding Qigong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost

Fnoord 10y ago
> This is exactly the point I've been making, that the meditation itself is not to blame for these issues. Well, if the subject lied about their medical conditions, then the retreat has written proof of that. That's why you gotta fill it in (its also why visa waiver asks seemingly ridiculous questions). Its CYA; in this case so it is more difficult to sue them successfully afterwards. That also underlines there is a responsibility for the retreat provider(s). You cannot completely deny responsibility. The relationship between client (customer) and server (provider) is not equal here. The provider is the specialist; the client is not. > Thanks for the other links, I shall read them. Great. Be aware I spend 2 + 2 + 3 minutes on it just to prove there is research on this available. I didn't do an exhaustive search so I suggest you push the limit further in that regard. > Regarding Qigong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost I find it furthermore ironic you link to that subpart of the Wikipedia page and my browser shows in such a way in the middle of my screen the "Overview of clinical research" (which I read first) where it is written: "Although clinical research examining health effects of qigong is increasing, there is little financial or medical incentive to support research, and still only a limited number of studies meet accepted medical and scientific standards of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[75]" and "A 2011 overview of systematic reviews of clinical trials concluded that "the effectiveness of qigong is based mostly on poor quality research" and "therefore, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".[3]" yet at the part you link to (which I was searching for in middle of my screen) it says "Qigong is generally viewed as safe.[74]" and "Although a 2010 comprehensive literature review found 77 peer-reviewed RCTs;[75] systematic reviews for particular health conditions show that most clinical research is of poor quality, typically because of small sample size and lack of proper control groups, with lack of blinding associated with high risk of bias.[3]" (Apart from the irony of my experience) this is clearly in contradiction with each other within the same article. Sorry, I'm careful. This article sums up why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13423421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13423421

Fnoord 10y ago

> This is exactly the point I've been making, that the meditation itself is not to blame for these issues. Well, if the subject lied about their medical conditions, then the retreat has written proof of that. That's why you gotta fill it in (its also why visa waiver asks seemingly ridiculous questions). Its CYA; in this case so it is more difficult to sue them successfully afterwards. That also underlines there is a responsibility for the retreat provider(s). You cannot completely deny responsibility. The relationship between client (customer) and server (provider) is not equal here. The provider is the specialist; the client is not. > Thanks for the other links, I shall read them. Great. Be aware I spend 2 + 2 + 3 minutes on it just to prove there is research on this available. I didn't do an exhaustive search so I suggest you push the limit further in that regard. > Regarding Qigong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qigong#Safety_and_cost I find it furthermore ironic you link to that subpart of the Wikipedia page and my browser shows in such a way in the middle of my screen the "Overview of clinical research" (which I read first) where it is written: "Although clinical research examining health effects of qigong is increasing, there is little financial or medical incentive to support research, and still only a limited number of studies meet accepted medical and scientific standards of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[75]" and "A 2011 overview of systematic reviews of clinical trials concluded that "the effectiveness of qigong is based mostly on poor quality research" and "therefore, it would be unwise to draw firm conclusions at this stage".[3]" yet at the part you link to (which I was searching for in middle of my screen) it says "Qigong is generally viewed as safe.[74]" and "Although a 2010 comprehensive literature review found 77 peer-reviewed RCTs;[75] systematic reviews for particular health conditions show that most clinical research is of poor quality, typically because of small sample size and lack of proper control groups, with lack of blinding associated with high risk of bias.[3]" (Apart from the irony of my experience) this is clearly in contradiction with each other within the same article. Sorry, I'm careful. This article sums up why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13423421 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13423421