| About this site |
| About us |
| Our beliefs |
| Is this your first visit? |
| Contact us |
| External links |
| Visitors' essays |
| Our forum |
| New essays |
| Other features |
| Buy a CD of this site |
| Vital notes |
| Non-theistic beliefs |
| Atheism |
| Agnosticism |
| Humanism |
| Other |
| Spiritual/ethics |
| Spirituality |
| Morality & ethics |
| Absolute truth |
| Peace/conflict |
| Attaining peace |
| Religious tolerance |
| Religious freedom |
| Religious hatred |
| Religious conflict |
| Religious violence |
| Laws and news |
| Religious laws |
| Religious news |
Sponsored links
 Effectiveness of "distant healing" prayer:Mayo clinic 1999. Two studies '89 & 99.
|
| Group |
End point reached, intercessory prayer group |
End point reached, control group |
| All patients |
25.6%
|
29.3%
|
| High risk patients |
31.0%
|
33.3%
|
| Low risk patients |
17.0%
|
24.1%
|
They concluded that intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit. 1
Two additional small studies in 1998 & 1999:
Victor Stenger refers to two:
"intercessory prayer studies that have been published in medical journals, accompanied by great media hype. For example, cardiologist Randolph Byrd has claimed evidence that coronary patients benefited from blind, distant intercessory prayer. But his p-value is only five percent. 2 Such results would be expected from statistical fluctuations alone every twenty experiments, on average. Another study along the same line as Byrd's has been published in a major medical journal... 3 There, positive results are reported at a p-value is four percent, but for different criteria than Byrd's. In fact, they fail to confirm Byrd's specific results." 4
Columbia University "study" of 2001:
This study involving three researchers at prestigious Columbia University in New York, and a very highly respected peer reviewed journal, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM). In theory, this research paper appeared both conclusive and remarkable. It examined the pregnancy rate of 199 women in Seoul, South Korea who were undergoing in-vitro fertilization. They were randomly selected to form a test group of 100 and a control group of 99. An extremely complex prayer protocol was used. Christians in the U.S., Australia, and Canada prayed over faxed photographs of the Korean women in the test group, praying for conception success. Other prayers prayed that the first set of prayers would be successful. A third tier of prayers prayed that the second set would be successful. Allegedly, none of the women were informed of the study.
The paper reported that 50% of those women who received prayer conceived. Only 26% of those who were not prayed for became pregnant. Unlike many other studies before and since, these result were statistically significant (p = 0.0013). The data were overwhelming. Here at last was a solid proof that anonymous, remote intercessory prayer (IP) actually worked! The press, TV and other media publicized the results widely.
Dr. Bruce Flamm, a clinical professor of gynecology and obstetrics at the University of California was puzzled about what he felt were irregularities in the study. Eventually many strange events are reported as having surfaced:
 |
The report stated that all three researchers started out with the
assumption that IP was ineffective. However, one of the three, Daniel Wirth,
had published many research articles in the past claiming supernatural
healing. Also, Wirth had a law degree and a masters degree in
parapsychology! He was not a medical doctor. |
|
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine allegedly stonewalled
requests for the names of the peer reviewers. |
|
A second researcher, Dr. Kwang Cha, had left Columbia and would not
respond to questions about the study. |
|
The third cited author is Dr. Rogerio Lobo, He was chairman of
obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia. Columbia now claims that he only
provided "editorial review and assistance" with publication of the
study. |
|
Columbia University originally issued a press release, claiming that the
study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias. They have
subsequently removed it from their web site. |
|
After the article was published. Wirth and another individual were
indicted on various felony charges including 13 counts of mail fraud and 12
counts of interstate transportation of stolen money. |
|
The Journal of Reproductive Medicine removed the article from
their web site. 5 |
|
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) started an investigation to determine if there was a lack of
informed consent by the subjects of this study.>5 |
|
Although the Columbia University news release listed Dr. Lobo as lead author, they later admitted to the DHHS that Dr. Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study was completed. |
Flamm authored an article in the Skeptical Inquirer magazine for 2004-SEP. 7 He wrote two articles in The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine in 2002 and 2004. 6.7
A Google search using a search string: Wirth, Columbia, prayer revealed about 1,360 hits of which many are skeptical reports of the study. Others accept the study at face value and cite it as proof that IP works.
Duke University studies - MANTRA study of 2003:
This experiment, Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic TRAinings, was been billed as "the worlds largest study into the effects of prayer on patients undergoing heart surgery..." It was led by a cardiologist, Dr. Mitch Krucoff, and involved 750 angioplasty patients in nine hospitals who were randomly divided into two groups of 375. Both groups were given normal medical treatment. One of the groups was prayed for by 12 groups who followed various religions: Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Islam. They were alerted by E-mail as soon as possible after the patient was enrolled in the trial. This was a double blind study; none of the hospital staff, or the patients, or the patients' relatives were aware of which 375 patients were receiving prayer. The patients were studied for six months to see how they progressed. The data showed no difference in outcome between the two groups. Prayer neither helped nor hindered their recovery. 9,10
Reactions:
|
The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, rejected any
study that "puts God to the test." He said: "Prayer is not a
penny in the slot machine. You can't just put in a coin and get out a
chocolate bar. This is like setting an exam for God to see if God will
pass it or not." He said that the Bible said "very clearly"
that you must not test God. 9 |
|
BBC News suggested that: |
"Other experts are highly critical of the concept that the benefits of prayer might be "dose-dependent" - that is, that the benefits might increase as the number of people praying went up.
"This is particularly important, as Duke University is at the center of the US 'Bible belt' - and many of the trial participants, regardless of whether they were randomized to receive prayer during the trial, would be getting it from relatives and friends - and of course themselves. 10That is, their own prayer plus the efforts of friends and family may produce a type of prayer saturation, so that prayer by strangers at a distance might not have any additional effect.
|
Dr Richard Sloan, from the New York
Presbyterian Hospital, described the concept of a prayer "dose" as "absurd".
He said: "It requires us to abandon our understanding of the physical
universe." 10 |
||||||||
|
Other possible criticisms are:
|
References used:
The following information sources were used to prepare and update the above essay. The hyperlinks are not necessarily still active today.
- J.M. Aviles, et al. "Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial." Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 2001;76:1192-1198. See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
- Randolph C. Byrd, "Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a coronary care unit population," Southern Medical Journal 81, no. 7 (1988). Pages 826 to 829.
- W.S. Harris, M. Gowda, J.W. Kolb, C.P. Strychacz, J.L. Vacek, P.G. Jones, A. Forker, J.H. O'Keefe, and B.D. McCallister, "A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit," Archives of Internal Medicine 159 (1999). Pages 2273 to 2278.
- Victor Stenger, "Reality check: The science of prayer," Skeptical Briefs newsletter, 2001-DEC, at: http://www.csicop.org/
- Leon Jaroff, "Questioning Healing Prayer. A reevaluation of a study threatens to tarnish the reputations of two prestigious institutions," Time magazine, 2004-JUL-01, at: http://www.time.com/
- B.L. Flamm, "Faith healing by prayer: Review of Cha, KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer?" Sci Review Alt Med 2002; 6(1):47-50.
- B.L. Flamm, "The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud," Skeptical Inquirer, 2004-SEP.
- B.L. Flamm, "Faith healing confronts modern medicine," Sci Review Alt Med 2004; 8(1):9-14.
- "Power of prayer found wanting by scientists," Chicago Sun-Times, 2003-OCT-15, at: http://www.suntimes.com/
- " 'No health benefit' from prayer," BBC News, 2003-OCT-15, at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/
- The "Good Fig: News for Christians" web site is at: http://www.goodfig.org/
Copyright © 1996 to 2010 by Ontario
Consultants on Religious Tolerance
Originally written: 1996-JAN-14
Latest update: 2010-NOV-05
Author: B.A. Robinson
Sponsored link
|
|
|
Page Translator: