I'm reading "Religion and Medicine: A History of the Encounter Between Humanity's Two Greatest Institutions" by Jeff Levin, Stephen G. Post and wanted to share this quote with you.
."In 1988 an unusual study appeared in the Southern Medical Journal. San Francisco cardiologist Randolph C. Byrd published results of a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial (RCT) of distant intercessory prayer for hospitalized patients in the coronary care unit at San Francisco General Hospital.1 Between 1982 and 1983, 393 cardiac patients were randomly assigned by computer-generated list to either a treatment or control group, the former receiving prayer from Christian groups outside the hospital. Each patient received prayer from three to seven intercessors. Blinding meant that neither doctors and nurses nor patients, nor even Byrd, knew what group each patient was assigned to, and intercessors received only the first name of a respective patient and his or her diagnosis. Pray-ers included born-again Christians and religious Roman Catholics active in a church or fellowship. What was the result? According to Byrd’s analyses, prayer worked. At follow-up, analyses showed that prayed-for patients had significantly less congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and cardiopulmonary arrest; required fewer antibiotics and diuretics and less intubation/ventilator assistance; and received a lower severity score based on a measure of the course of their postentry hospital stay.2 In the acknowledgments at the end of his paper, Byrd humbly added the following: “In addition, I thank God for responding to the many prayers made on behalf of the patients.”3 Publication of Byrd’s study created a firestorm of comment and critique.4 Fallout included denunciations from secular skeptics5 and devout Christians6 alike. But there was also an emerging apologetics from secular physicians and proponents of a more welcoming role for spirituality in healthcare.7 Notably, the response from readers of the SMJ was mostly positive, with one exception—a letter to the editor accusing the journal of an “attempt to return medicine to the Dark Ages” by publishing a study that sought “to undermine reason.”8"
Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/fd3uXDn
"Tefillin and cardiovascular function. A controlled study of twenty Jewish men, conducted at the University of Cincinnati, found that use of tefillin (nonocclusive leather straps attached to the arm during morning prayer, also known as phylacteries) appeared to have an ischemic preconditioning effect.173 Long-term daily use among Orthodox Jews was associated with an anti-inflammatory response (decreased levels of circulating cytokines and attenuated monocyte chemotaxis and adhesion), while acute use in both religious and nonreligious Jews was associated with improved vascular function (greater brachial artery diameter and flow volume) after thirty minutes of use. I must admit that I am not sure what to make of these results, but as a practicing Jew I find the possible implications fascinating and encouraging."
Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/6RXdNdN
--------------
Read on the go for free – download Kindle for Android, iOS, PC, Mac and more
Therfe is much in a jewish lifestyle that promotes mental and physical health. Fasting has health benefits. Wearing tefillin apparently does too. But also the need to daven at specific times, especially in the morning which pushes the body into a consistent routine. There is also the social aspect. Going to shul daily keeps people interactive. The learning constantly stimulates the brain. And the forced cessation of work and nowadays disconnection from electronic devices allows the brain to rest and recuperate while also ensuring weekly family time.
ReplyDeleteIt's a shame we all blow it by putting the worst parts of the beef in the cholent on Shabbos and overconsuming latkes and doughnuts for 8 days.