| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
31 Mar 2006 11:45:09 AM |
| Object: |
Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery. In
fact, some of the people who were prayed for did worse. The results of
the study of more than 1,800 patients were published in the American
Heart Journal. From Reuters:
The patients in the study at six U.S. hospitals included 604 who were
actually prayed for after being told they might or might not be;
another 597 patients who were not prayed for after being told they
might or might not be; and a group of 601 who were prayed for and told
they would be the subject of such prayer.
The praying was done by members of three Christian groups in
monasteries and elsewhere -- two Catholic and one Protestant -- who
were given written prayers and the first name and initial of the last
name of the prayer subjects. The prayers started on the eve of or day
of surgery and lasted for two weeks.
Among the first group -- who were prayed for but only told they might
be -- 52 percent had post-surgical complications compared to 51 percent
in the second group, the ones who were not prayed for though told they
might be. In the third group, who knew they were being prayed for, 59
percent had complications.
After 30 days, however, the death rates and incidence of major
complications was about the same across all three groups, said the
study.
========
From efficacy to safety concerns: A STEP forward or a step back for
clinical research and intercessory prayer: The Study of Therapeutic
Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP)
Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, FACC, Suzanne W. Crater, RN, ANP-C, Kerry L.
Lee, PhD
Received 27 June 2005; accepted 28 June 2005
"Historically one is inclined to look upon science and religion as
irreconcilable antagonistsc... . I maintain that cosmic religious
feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific
research...." -- Einstein, A. "The World as I See It"
Systematic study of intangible "noetic1" or "frontier2" healing methods
such as intercessory prayer, defined as "widely practiced therapeutics
with no plausible mechanism,2" is an area of great public and
scientific interest, as well as of great controversy.3,4. Although
prayer is one of the most ancient of healing practices, the scientific
literature studying prayer is still quite young. In this issue of the
journal, Benson et al report the sixth and largest prospective,
randomized, placebo-controlled study of distant prayer scardiovascular
patients1,5-8 in the STEP.
It is not surprising that so much of the study of healing effects of
prayer would be pursued in the "high tech" world of cardiovascular
care,9 as heart disease invariably faces patients, families, and loved
ones with the immediate prospect of death, myocardial infarction, and
stroke, either from the disease or from the procedures associated with
its treatment. In this setting, the cultural practices of patients,
families, and medical staff frequently include the personal use of
prayer or solicitation of prayer with therapeutic intention from other
devotees. Previous trials include 3 studies in coronary care unit
populations5-7 and 2 in percutaneous coronary intervention
populations.1,8 STEP is the first report of distant intercessory prayer
in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.
In the absence of mechanistic insight, attention to the quality of
clinical trials science used for the study of an emotionally and
culturally charged "therapy" such as intercessory prayer10 becomes
critical to the interpretability of study findings and to the utility
of such findings to the practice of medicine. In this regard, the STEP
investigators are to be congratulated for reporting a large,
prospective multicenter study using classic clinical end points (as
defined by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons database), with rigorous
quality control in the study's conduct and a thoughtful and rigorous
statistical analysis plan including sensitivity analyses for missing
data. The STEP study is unequivocally a landmark in the peer review
literature on this topic.
A few study design questions can, nonetheless, be raised. "Constraints
on how intercessory prayer was provided" excluded all but a handful of
prayer groups and may have affected the actual prayers performed by
those groups. As the authors point out, although on the one hand this
gave rigor to the prayer method used, it may also have impacted the
quality of the prayer itself and leaves open questions about the
generalizability of the STEP findings relative to other intercessory
prayer approaches.
The primary analytic plan also represents some fundamental trade-offs,
as is almost always the case in clinical trial planning. As the authors
carefully explain, their prospective plan compared Group 1 (prayer but
uncertain) versus Group 2 (no prayer but uncertain) and independently
compared Group 1 (prayer but uncertain) with Group 3 (prayer and
certain). This structure allows a single feature to be assessed for
efficacy in each comparison: the effect of adding prayer in a
double-blind (Group 1 vs Group 2) and the effect of certainty versus
uncertainty in patients receiving intercessory prayer (Group 1 vs Group
3). The trade-offs of adopting this analytic plan, however, especially
in light of the data, are relatively unexplored in discussion by the
authors, and although rethinking the analysis plan after the data have
been examined may be fatally biased, some discussion of the absence of
even secondary analyses of all exposure to prayer versus placebo or a
3-way comparison model across the studied groups might have been
helpful to readers.
Defining other features of the study cohort might also have been
revealing. Patients enrolled in the double-blinded arms might still be
inclined to guess or even believe they know what their treatment
assignment actually was. In elective percutaneous coronary intervention
patients enrolled in a double-blinded prayer study, about two thirds of
patients not actually assigned prayer believed that they were.8 In
STEP, documentation of what patients were actually assigned versus what
they believed they were assigned in Groups 1 and 2 (uncertain prayer
and uncertain no prayer, respectively) might have provided insight into
the possible role of a placebo effect.
With excellent clinical science, overall, and a handful of design
criticisms inevitable in clinical studies, the most striking element of
the STEP report is in the interpretation of the study results showing
significantly worsened outcomes in one of the experimental arms. While
presenting these results clearly and noting them in discussion, the
investigators take an almost casual approach toward any explanation,
stating only that it "may have been a chance finding." It is rather
unusual to attribute a statistically significant result in the primary
end point of a prospective, multicenter randomized trial to "chance."
In fact, such attribution is antithetical to the very definition of
what a error and statistical certainty imply: that the worse outcomes
are almost certainly related to the therapy and not the play of chance.
If the results had shown benefit rather than harm, would we have read
the investigators' conclusion that this effect "may have been a chance
finding," with absolutely no other comments, insight, or even
speculation?
A more straightforward interpretation might have been that patients who
were asked to hide a clinical study treatment assignment from their
bedside staff and "who were certain that intercessors would pray for
them had a higher rate of complications," that is, that this construct
appears to do harm. Literally, from the analysis plan, this "harm" is
measured relative to the double-blinded prayer cohort (Group 3, prayer
and certain vs Group 1, prayer and uncertain), although Group 1 itself
had worse absolute rates of complications than the standard care, Group
2 (no prayer, uncertain). Secondary analyses of the data that might
help try to understand whether the stress on the patient in the
preoperative period was the key detrimental factor or whether it was
the intercessory prayer per se that may be unsafe in this patient
population were not performed. If space constraints limited the
opportunity to present secondary analyses, at least some indication of
their potential might have been commented upon.
Compared with the very high level of study design, conduct, and
analysis, the STEP investigators' interpretation of the study results
appears to reflect more the cultural bias that healing prayer could
only seriously be explored for effectiveness, not for safety issues.
Culturally, "harm" resulting from prayer is generally ascribed to
overtly "negative" prayer, such as hateful prayer, voodoo, spells, or
other black magic.11 Positively intended intercessory prayer is
considered a priori to be only capable of doing good, if it does
anything at all. But this cultural dichotomy is medically problematic
and ethically unacceptable in the setting of a clinical trial
performing structured experimentation on human subjects. Particularly
in the absence of mechanistic insight, outcome researchers must be
vigilant in asking the question of whether a well-intentioned, loving,
heartfelt healing prayer might inadvertently harm or kill vulnerable
patients in certain circumstances. Although the STEP data do not
actually prove that prayer had an untoward effect on coronary artery
bypass graft patients, to simply write off significantly worse outcomes
in one of the experimental arms as the play of chance is in striking
contrast to all the other measures the STEP coordinating center and
investigators took to ensure the safety of participating patients and
quality of the study data. Thus, although the STEP investigators used
every appropriate means of protection of the human subjects who
participated in their study, the casual approach to the question of
safety in the final data interpretation promotes a dangerously
ambiguous message to investigators who might be inclined to do research
in this area in the future.
In the study of noetic therapies and, perhaps most particularly, in the
study of intercessory prayer, unique issues of personal sensitivity,
underlying assumptions on the part of the investigators, and ethical
obligations abound.9 Approaching a patient to participate in a prayer
study before a procedure could inadvertently alarm a patient, "You mean
I'm so sick that I might need prayer?" Even the assumption that
standard clinical outcome measures are appropriate end points for
studies of prayer must be carefully examined; for instance, many
prayers for the sick contain the implicit objective of easing the
passage of the spirit out of the body, an outcome which, by Society of
Thoracic Surgeons definition, would be coded as death.
In a randomized single-center study of prayer in coronary care unit
patients, Harris et al6 were supported by the hospital institutional
review board (IRB) to conduct the study without obtaining informed
consent from patients. The concern leading to this design element was a
deep and thoughtful one: patient awareness that a study of prayer was
ongoing might profoundly change the spiritual landscape being studied.
The IRB was duly consulted, and the study design was approved based on
the IRB's conclusion that this therapy "could not possibly do harm."
Although for personal or cultural practices assumptions of Divine
benevolence may be both relevant and satisfactory, for clinical
research, such an assumption could only be considered scientifically
naive as in the history of medicine there has never been a healing
remedy that was actually effective without having potential side
effects or toxicities.
Rigorous thinking is not an indictment of prayer or prayer's potential
healing power. Rather, it is respect for the complex, redundant, and
relatively frail aspects of human physiology in the setting of coronary
revascularization. In medical school, almost 30 years ago, we were
taught to define health as a state of equilibrium and to understand
disease as a fundamental disequilibrium. Protocol addition of an
influence we do not mechanistically understand into a physiologic or
even "mind-body-spirit" disequilibrium such as heart disease obliges
open minded clarity in interpreting the results, even if the results
are not what we intend or expect. Both ethically and scientifically,
this approach should be no different for the clinical study of
intercessory prayer than for any other novel therapeutic.
In STEP, the safety of patients and related ethical obligations to
study subjects were conducted, like so much of the study methodology,
at the very highest level. Informed consent was required, and data and
safety monitoring board oversight was provided. The data, on the other
hand, proved to be counterintuitive. The assumption imbedded in the
analysis plan was that blinded prayer would be effective and unblinded
prayer even more effective, with expected complication rates of 50% in
the standard care group, 40% in the blinded prayer group, and 30% in
the unblinded prayer group---exactly the opposite of what was actually
observed. In the interpretation of obviously counterintuitive findings
as "what may have been chance," the STEP investigators have allowed
cultural presumption to undermine scientific objectivity. Leading
researchers such as the STEP team should be underlining the imperative
that mechanistically undefined "frontier" therapy research---even well
intentioned intercessory prayer---must be scrutinized for safety issues
at an equal or even higher level than efficacy measures if medically
important and useful knowledge in this arena is to truly step forward.
References
1. 1Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Green CL, et al.. Integrative noetic
therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable
coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training
(MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am Heart J. 2001;142:760-769. Abstract |
Full Text | PDF (120 KB) | CrossRef
2. 2Straus S, Nahin R. In: National Center for Complementary and
Alternative Medicine. Minutes of the Sixth Meeting. 2001;Available
at:http://nccam.nih.gov/about/advisory/naccam/minutes/2001feb.htm#naccam_presentAccessed
June 7, 2005.
3. 3Sloan RP, Bagiella E, Powell T, et al.. Religion, spirituality, and
medicine. Lancet. 1999;353:664-667. Full Text | PDF (81 KB) | MEDLINE
| CrossRef
4. 4Dossey L. Do religion and spirituality matter in health? A response
to the recent article in The Lancet. Altern Ther Health Med.
1999;5:16-18. MEDLINE
5. 5Byrd RC. Positive therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer in a
coronary care unit population. South Med J. 1988;81:826-829. MEDLINE
6. 6Harris WS, Gowda M, Kolb JW, et al.. A randomized, controlled trial
of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients
admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med.
1999;159:2273-2278. MEDLINE | CrossRef
7. 7Aviles JM, Whelan SE, Hernke DA, et al.. Intercessory prayer and
cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population:
a randomized controlled trial. Mayo Clin Proc. 2001;76:1192-1198.
MEDLINE
8. 8Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Gallup D, et al.. Imagery, touch and prayer
as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and
Actualization of Noetic TRAinings (MANTRA) II randomized study. Lancet.
2005;366:211-217. Abstract | Full Text | PDF (101 KB) | CrossRef
9. 9Vogel JH, Bolling SF, Costello RB, et al. American College of
Cardiology Clinical Expert Consensus Document on the Integration of
Complementary Medicine Into Cardiovascular Medicine, J Am Coll Cardiol
[in press].
10. 10Dusek JA, Astin JA, Hibberd PL, et al.. Healing prayer outcomes
studies: consensus recommendations. Altern Ther.
2003;9(Suppl.):A44-A53.
11. 11Dossey L. The dark side of consciousness and the therapeutic
relationship. Altern Ther Health Med. 2002;8:12-6, 118-22.
Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute,
Durham, NC
Reprint request: Mitchell W. Krucoff, MD, Duke University Medical
Center, VAMC, 508 Fulton Street, Room A3012, Durham, NC27705.
PII: S0002-8703(05)00648-4
doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2005.06.031
2006 Published by Elsevier Inc.
.
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
31 Mar 2006 08:53:43 PM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800,
spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God..."
-Deuteronomy 6:16a
--
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass,
till all these things be fulfilled." - Matthew 24:34
The Last Days were in the first century:
Matthew 3:7,10,12
7) But when He saw many of the Pharisees and
Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto
THEM, O GENERATION of vipers, who hath warned
YOU to flee from the wrath to come?
10) And NOW also the axe is laid unto the root
of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.
12) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will
throughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat
into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff
with unquenchable fire.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Erickson" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
05 Apr 2006 11:50:31 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 02:53:43 GMT, Pastor Dave
<_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800,
spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God..."
-Deuteronomy 6:16a
Did God respond to the prayers in a way he would not have if there
were no test going on? Did the test make God let people die?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fredric L. Rice" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
03 Apr 2006 08:41:31 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800, spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
Exactly what the study showed.
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God..." -Deuteronomy 6:16a
The Christian mythologies specifically state, "ask and it shall be
granted," and only a dog fucking idiot would try to pretend that
utilizing god's commandment to ask is some how "tempting."
Fact is, the study proves that the invocation to deity constructs
does nothing. That's something that rational, normal, thinking
people have always known, and something that ignorant occult savages
like you will never learn.
No offense intended.
---
"Stone and Parker said there would be retribution." - AP NewsWire
http://www.chefgate.info/
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Notably Introspective Extrovert" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
03 Apr 2006 11:49:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:41:31 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
Pastor Dave <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800, spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
Exactly what the study showed.
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God..." -Deuteronomy 6:16a
The Christian mythologies specifically state, "ask and it shall be
granted," and only a dog fucking idiot would try to pretend that
utilizing god's commandment to ask is some how "tempting."
Fact is, the study proves that the invocation to deity constructs
does nothing.
It does nothing of the sort. Rather, it demonstrates that
most Catholics and New Age Protestants don't have their prayers
answered. :)
"'Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery
from illness, and the results of this study do not challenge this
belief,' the report concluded."
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=uri:2006-03-30T204217Z_01_N30395850_RTRUKOC_0_US-PRAYER.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-prayer31mar31,1,3169049.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Notably Introspective Extrovert" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
03 Apr 2006 11:59:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 23:49:22 -0500, The Notably Introspective
Extrovert <withdrawn@gregarious.net> wrote:
On Tue, 04 Apr 2006 01:41:31 GMT, (Fredric L.
Rice) wrote:
Pastor Dave <_-_Ananias917_-_@gmail.com> wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800, spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
Exactly what the study showed.
"You shall not tempt the LORD your God..." -Deuteronomy 6:16a
The Christian mythologies specifically state, "ask and it shall be
granted," and only a dog fucking idiot would try to pretend that
utilizing god's commandment to ask is some how "tempting."
Fact is, the study proves that the invocation to deity constructs
does nothing.
It does nothing of the sort. Rather, it demonstrates that
most Catholics and New Age Protestants don't have their prayers
answered. :)
...nor homosexual Episcopalians. ;)
--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
31 Mar 2006 09:08:29 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800,
spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
I'm with you. God, being omniscient and all, is far too clever to fall
for such a cheap trick.
That means we'll have to think up something even more damnably clever
than this experiment to find out if prayer really works.
Hmmmmm........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
01 Apr 2006 01:40:34 AM |
|
|
On 31 Mar 2006 19:08:29 -0800, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> wrote:
- Refer: <1143860909.165860.203580@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 31 Mar 2006 09:45:09 -0800,
spake thusly:
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/03/30/prayer_wont_heal_ya.html
A new scientific study (published in a the _American_Heart_Journal_
Volume 151, Issue 4, Pages 762-764 (April 2006): see below) shows that
prayer didn't seem to help patients who underwent bypass surgery.
What did you expect?
I'm with you. God, being omniscient and all, is far too clever to fall
for such a cheap trick.
That means we'll have to think up something even more damnably clever
than this experiment to find out if prayer really works.
Hmmmmm........
The only thing that Pastit Dave's God is any good at, is pretending
that it doesn't exist.
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Desertphile" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
31 Mar 2006 04:51:43 PM |
|
|
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Prayer_Study.html
Thursday, March 30, 2006 =B7 Last updated 5:03 p.m. PT
Study: Praying won't affect heart patients
By MALCOLM RITTER
AP SCIENCE WRITER
NEW YORK -- Does praying for a sick person's recovery do any good? In
the largest scientific test of its kind, heart surgery patients showed
no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher
rate of complications. The researchers could only guess why.
Several scientists questioned the concept of the study. Science "is not
designed to study the supernatural," said Dr. Harold G. Koenig,
director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the
Duke University Medical Center.
The researchers who tested the power of prayer emphasized that their
$2.4 million study could not address whether God exists or answers
prayers made on another's behalf. The study could look only for effects
from the specific prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
The highly anticipated study "did not move us forward or backward" in
understanding the effects of prayer, said Dr. Charles Bethea, a
co-author and cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in
Oklahoma City. "Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a
neutral effect."
Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, co-principal investigator
of the study, agreed. "We cannot come to a conclusion, except to say
that by this study design, with its limitations, this is what we
found."
The researchers also said they didn't know why patients who knew they
were being prayed for had a higher rate of complications than patients
who only knew that such prayers were a possibility.
Maybe they became anxious by the knowledge that they'd been selected
for prayers, Bethea said: "Did the patients think, 'I am so sick that
they had to call in the prayer team?'"
The researchers said family and friends shouldn't be discouraged from
telling a patient about their plans to pray for a good recovery.
Experts called it the largest and best-designed study ever to test the
medical effects of intercessory prayers - praying on behalf of someone
else. That's different from studying the effect of a person's prayers
and spiritual practices on his or her own health; many studies of that
have shown a positive effect.
The new study followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers. It
was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into
science and religion, and one of the participating hospitals. It will
appear in Tuesday's issue of the American Heart Journal.
The research team tested the effect of having three Christian groups
pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and
continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful
surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for
specific patients - their identities known only by first name and first
initial of the last name.
The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600
apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were
prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't
prayed for but were told it was a possibility.
The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to
alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been
unethical and impractical.
The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery.
Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But
among patients who did receive prayers, 59 percent of the patients who
knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52
percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.
Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of
New York at Buffalo, and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, had a blunt response when
asked why he thought the study found no effect of prayer.
"Because there is none," he said. "That would be one answer."
He added that while he tries to keep an open mind, he's seen no good
evidence for such an effect in past studies. The new work, he said,
"gives added emphasis to those who have been skeptical."
Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the
study, said the results didn't surprise him.
"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no
real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is
no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Muslim scriptures that can be
constrained to the point that they can be predicted."
Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned
with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and "why would God change
his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research
study?"
Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and
Dental Associations, said he believes intercessory prayer can influence
medical outcomes, but that science is not equipped to explore it.
"Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely
not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not," he said.
As for the new study, he said, "I don't think ... it's going to stop
people praying for the sick."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
31 Mar 2006 06:37:44 PM |
|
|
Desertphile wrote:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Prayer_Study.html
Thursday, March 30, 2006 · Last updated 5:03 p.m. PT
Study: Praying won't affect heart patients
By MALCOLM RITTER
AP SCIENCE WRITER
NEW YORK -- Does praying for a sick person's recovery do any good? In
the largest scientific test of its kind, heart surgery patients showed
no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher
rate of complications. The researchers could only guess why.
Several scientists questioned the concept of the study. Science "is not
designed to study the supernatural," said Dr. Harold G. Koenig,
director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the
Duke University Medical Center.
The researchers who tested the power of prayer emphasized that their
$2.4 million study could not address whether God exists or answers
prayers made on another's behalf. The study could look only for effects
from the specific prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
The highly anticipated study "did not move us forward or backward" in
understanding the effects of prayer, said Dr. Charles Bethea, a
co-author and cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in
Oklahoma City. "Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a
neutral effect."
Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, co-principal investigator
of the study, agreed. "We cannot come to a conclusion, except to say
that by this study design, with its limitations, this is what we
found."
The researchers also said they didn't know why patients who knew they
were being prayed for had a higher rate of complications than patients
who only knew that such prayers were a possibility.
Maybe they became anxious by the knowledge that they'd been selected
for prayers, Bethea said: "Did the patients think, 'I am so sick that
they had to call in the prayer team?'"
The researchers said family and friends shouldn't be discouraged from
telling a patient about their plans to pray for a good recovery.
Experts called it the largest and best-designed study ever to test the
medical effects of intercessory prayers - praying on behalf of someone
else. That's different from studying the effect of a person's prayers
and spiritual practices on his or her own health; many studies of that
have shown a positive effect.
The new study followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers. It
was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into
science and religion, and one of the participating hospitals. It will
appear in Tuesday's issue of the American Heart Journal.
The research team tested the effect of having three Christian groups
pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and
continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful
surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for
specific patients - their identities known only by first name and first
initial of the last name.
The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600
apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were
prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't
prayed for but were told it was a possibility.
The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to
alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been
unethical and impractical.
The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery.
Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But
among patients who did receive prayers, 59 percent of the patients who
knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52
percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.
Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of
New York at Buffalo, and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, had a blunt response when
asked why he thought the study found no effect of prayer.
"Because there is none," he said. "That would be one answer."
He added that while he tries to keep an open mind, he's seen no good
evidence for such an effect in past studies. The new work, he said,
"gives added emphasis to those who have been skeptical."
Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the
study, said the results didn't surprise him.
"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no
real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is
no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Muslim scriptures that can be
constrained to the point that they can be predicted."
Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned
with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and "why would God change
his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research
study?"
Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and
Dental Associations, said he believes intercessory prayer can influence
medical outcomes, but that science is not equipped to explore it.
"Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely
not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not," he said.
As for the new study, he said, "I don't think ... it's going to stop
people praying for the sick."
===>"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up
is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes,
wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers,
and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery.
Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it,
pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in
all history."
-Robert Heinlein: Lazarus Long, Time Enough for Love.
-- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Study found prayer did not help heart patients |
31 Mar 2006 06:36:53 PM |
|
|
These results are certainly what was to be expected. There is NO objective
evidence that any of the
thousands of different god beliefs are fact are that any of these gods
actually exist.
The objective evidence is that no gods created man but quite the opposite;
that man created gods.
"Desertphile" <desertphile@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143845503.446107.22830@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/health/1500AP_Prayer_Study.html
Thursday, March 30, 2006 · Last updated 5:03 p.m. PT
Study: Praying won't affect heart patients
By MALCOLM RITTER
AP SCIENCE WRITER
NEW YORK -- Does praying for a sick person's recovery do any good? In
the largest scientific test of its kind, heart surgery patients showed
no benefit when strangers prayed for their recovery.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher
rate of complications. The researchers could only guess why.
Several scientists questioned the concept of the study. Science "is not
designed to study the supernatural," said Dr. Harold G. Koenig,
director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the
Duke University Medical Center.
The researchers who tested the power of prayer emphasized that their
$2.4 million study could not address whether God exists or answers
prayers made on another's behalf. The study could look only for effects
from the specific prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
The highly anticipated study "did not move us forward or backward" in
understanding the effects of prayer, said Dr. Charles Bethea, a
co-author and cardiologist at the Integris Baptist Medical Center in
Oklahoma City. "Intercessory prayer under our restricted format had a
neutral effect."
Dr. Herbert Benson of Harvard Medical School, co-principal investigator
of the study, agreed. "We cannot come to a conclusion, except to say
that by this study design, with its limitations, this is what we
found."
The researchers also said they didn't know why patients who knew they
were being prayed for had a higher rate of complications than patients
who only knew that such prayers were a possibility.
Maybe they became anxious by the knowledge that they'd been selected
for prayers, Bethea said: "Did the patients think, 'I am so sick that
they had to call in the prayer team?'"
The researchers said family and friends shouldn't be discouraged from
telling a patient about their plans to pray for a good recovery.
Experts called it the largest and best-designed study ever to test the
medical effects of intercessory prayers - praying on behalf of someone
else. That's different from studying the effect of a person's prayers
and spiritual practices on his or her own health; many studies of that
have shown a positive effect.
The new study followed about 1,800 patients at six medical centers. It
was financed by the Templeton Foundation, which supports research into
science and religion, and one of the participating hospitals. It will
appear in Tuesday's issue of the American Heart Journal.
The research team tested the effect of having three Christian groups
pray for particular patients, starting the night before surgery and
continuing for two weeks. The volunteers prayed for "a successful
surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications" for
specific patients - their identities known only by first name and first
initial of the last name.
The patients, meanwhile, were split into three groups of about 600
apiece: those who knew they were being prayed for, those who were
prayed for but only knew it was a possibility, and those who weren't
prayed for but were told it was a possibility.
The researchers didn't ask patients or their families and friends to
alter any plans they had for prayer, saying such a step would have been
unethical and impractical.
The study looked for any complications within 30 days of the surgery.
Results showed no effect of prayer on complication-free recovery. But
among patients who did receive prayers, 59 percent of the patients who
knew they were being prayed for developed a complication, versus 52
percent of those who were told it was just a possibility.
Paul Kurtz, professor emeritus of philosophy at the State University of
New York at Buffalo, and chairman of the Committee for the Scientific
Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, had a blunt response when
asked why he thought the study found no effect of prayer.
"Because there is none," he said. "That would be one answer."
He added that while he tries to keep an open mind, he's seen no good
evidence for such an effect in past studies. The new work, he said,
"gives added emphasis to those who have been skeptical."
Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, who didn't take part in the
study, said the results didn't surprise him.
"There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no
real theological grounds to expect a result either," he said. "There is
no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Muslim scriptures that can be
constrained to the point that they can be predicted."
Within the Christian tradition, God would be expected to be concerned
with a person's eternal salvation, he said, and "why would God change
his plans for a particular person just because they're in a research
study?"
Dr. David Stevens, executive director of the Christian Medical and
Dental Associations, said he believes intercessory prayer can influence
medical outcomes, but that science is not equipped to explore it.
"Do we control God through prayer? Theologians would say absolutely
not. God decides sometimes to intervene, and sometimes not," he said.
As for the new study, he said, "I don't think ... it's going to stop
people praying for the sick."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
