Having said all the positive, I must conceed that perhaps the level of professionalism in this journal leaves something to be desired-if this is main article. I would expect a medical association to be highly focused on concrete research with real experimental subjects, and the main body of the journal should reflect this focus.

The authors didn't carry any degree weight to their names, perhaps they are using it as an appeal to notice: hey look what I know, let me in your program. This might be a scientifically un-informative article, but quite witty. Invariably, times change: behavioral drugs are keeping eeyors from feeling so badly, and they work better than yoga. Besides, scientists don't necessarilly make money doing such things: it doesn't take a government grant to do a short lit review and diagnose cartoon minds. Be critical, but balanced in the approach.

Thank you,