No surprise to rational minds. But praying for other people to recover
from an illness is ineffective, according to the largest, best-designed
study to examine the power of prayer to heal strangers at a distance.
The study found that those who had people praying for them had as many
complications as those who did not. In fact, one group of studied
patients who knew they were the subject of prayers fared worse!
This should not be shocking to educated, enlightened people who accept
that there simply is no verifiable, provable entity as a "god" to pray
to. This atheistic stance is not to discourage people from praying, if
they derive some doubt-filled comfort from the pointless exercise. But
the study, just the latest among many in recent years, points up a
long-held fallacy among fearful and ignorant religionists. These
woeful, benighted types foolishly hope and "pray" for an "afterlife,"
where negative or sorrow-filled earthly experiences are magically
washed away, to be replaced by "heavenly" rewards, such as wealth, good
looks, talent, good times -- things that were missing from their REAL
lives!
Sorry to disappoint these slugs, but lacking a god and an afterlife,
prayer is about as dumb as chicken poop!
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
"Prayer Doesn't Aid Recovery, Study Finds"
"Effect on Healing of Strangers at Distance
After Heart-Bypass Surgery Examined"
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 31, 2006; A06
Praying for other people to recover from an illness is ineffective,
according to the largest, best-designed study to examine the power of
prayer to heal strangers at a distance.
The study of more than 1,800 heart-bypass patients found that those who
had people praying for them had as many complications as those who did
not. In fact, one group of patients who knew they were the subject of
prayers fared worse.
The long-awaited results, the latest in a series of studies that have
not found any benefit from "distant" or "intercessory" prayer, came as
a blow to those hoping scientific research would validate the popular
notion that people can influence others' health, even if the sick do
not know that someone is praying for them.
The researchers cautioned that the study was not designed to test the
existence of God or the benefit of other types of prayer, such as
praying for oneself or praying at the bedside of friends or relatives.
They also did not rule out that other types of distant prayer may be
effective for other types of patients.
"No one single study is ever going to provide an answer," said Jeffery
A=2E Dusek of Harvard Medical School, who helped lead the study being
published in the April 4 issue of the American Heart Journal.
Although many studies have suggested that praying for oneself may
reduce stress, research into praying for others who may not know they
are the subject of prayers has been much more controversial. Several
studies that claimed to show a benefit have been criticized as deeply
flawed.
And several of the most recent findings have found no benefit.
The new $2.4 million study, funded primarily by the John Templeton
Foundation, was designed to overcome some of those shortcomings. Dusek
and his colleagues divided 1,802 bypass patients at six hospitals into
three groups. Two groups were uncertain whether they would be the
subject of prayers. The third was told they would definitely be prayed
for.
The researchers recruited two Catholic groups and one Protestant group
to pray "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no
complications" for 14 days for each patient, beginning the night before
the surgery, using the patient's first name and the first initial of
the last name.
Over the next month, the two groups that were uncertain whether they
were the subject of prayers fared virtually the same, with about 52
percent of patients experiencing complications regardless of whether
they were the subject of prayers.
Surprisingly, 59 percent of the patients who knew they were being
prayed for experienced complications.
Because the most common complication was an irregular heartbeat,
researchers speculated that knowing they were chosen to receive prayers
may have inadvertently put the patients under increased stress.
"Did the patients think, 'I am so sick they had to call in the prayer
team?' " said Charles Bethea of the Integris Heart Hospital at Baptist
Medical Center in Oklahoma City, who helped conduct the study.
Skeptics said the study should put to rest the notion that distant
prayer has any effect.
"I would hope that these results, combined with similar recent
findings, would encourage scientists to stick to science and stop
dabbling in the supernatural," said Bruce Flamm of the University of
California at Irvine.
Even some supporters of incorporating more spirituality into medicine
said they hope the findings will put an end to such research.
"It's time now to redirect resources towards supporting studies that
try to understand how religious faith influences people's health and
well-being through understandable mechanisms," said Harold Koenig of
Duke University.
But proponents of such research said the work is important because so
many people believe in prayer.
"I would hate to have premature closure based on a handful of studies,"
said Marilyn J. Schlitz of the Institute of Noetic Sciences in
Petaluma, Calif. "We just don't know enough about this to close the
door."
The findings are unlikely to change the minds of the faithful, several
pastors said.
"We welcome and appreciate the involvement of scientists researching
faith," said Rob Brendle, associate pastor of the New Life Church in
Colorado Springs. "But this is just one study. We believe
wholeheartedly that prayer changes things. So many of us have
experienced that in our lives."
=A9 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/30/AR200603300=
0902.html
.
|
