[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

So how does that relate to this study?

The study is made on the premise that prayer is talking to God and somehow affect His actions. There is no harm in asking God, but a lot of the time the answer is no.

Christianity is a way of life and a powerful religion. It is not a hotline to God to ask Him to do your bidding.

Thus, this "study" was at best a waste of time and money because it was based on a very selfish premise that is not a part of Christianity.

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

The study is made on the premise that prayer is talking to God and somehow affect His actions. There is no harm in asking God, but a lot of the time the answer is no.
W-Y

No, the study didn't want to see if God answered. They were looking to see if it has a positive effect on people (in terms of placebo). Turns out it actually makes you WORSE.

Explain that.

[Kevin]

For every study that says that, I can find 5 that show otherwise.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

No, the study didn't want to see if God answered. They were looking to see if it has a positive effect on people (in terms of placebo). Turns out it actually makes you WORSE.

Explain that.

Coincidence. What would it matter in any way if someone prayed for you or not (assuming there is no God)?



Kevin is right. One study indicates nothing.

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Coincidence. What would it matter in any way if someone prayed for you or not (assuming there is no God)?



Kevin is right. One study indicates nothing.

cheers

W-Y

How would it matter? If you are sitting in bed knowing that tons of people are begging god for you to get better you might think of your situation as worse than it is which makes you MORE sick.

The study didn't want to find god, they wanted to see if prayer helped in a placebo manner and they seem to have done a great job in showing how poorly it helps.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

How would it matter? If you are sitting in bed knowing that tons of people are begging god for you to get better you might think of your situation as worse than it is which makes you MORE sick.

The study didn't want to find god, they wanted to see if prayer helped in a placebo manner and they seem to have done a great job in showing how poorly it helps.

From an atheist POV how could anyone think that prayer helps or harms?

Why even perform the prayers? Just tell people that they're being prayed for. That should yield exactly the same results.

cheers

W-Y

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

From an atheist POV how could anyone think that prayer helps or harms?

Why even perform the prayers? Just tell people that they're being prayed for. That should yield exactly the same results.

cheers

W-Y

They did that in this study, and they appear to have found that knowing people were praying for you made health outcomes worse. It makes perfect sense to go the next step and have people actually pray, which they did, and that didn't make any difference.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

No, the study didn't want to see if God answered. They were looking to see if it has a positive effect on people (in terms of placebo). Turns out it actually makes you WORSE.

Explain that.

Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.

And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.

But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

There ya go.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

They did that in this study, and they appear to have found that knowing people were praying for you made health outcomes worse. It makes perfect sense to go the next step and have people actually pray, which they did, and that didn't make any difference.

No, they actually prayed for them.

Originally Posted by article

Three Christian groups were asked to pray for particular patients, starting the night before their surgeries and continuing for two weeks.

The volunteers were given a patient's given name and last initial, and prayed for "a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

I don't see why they actually went through with that part instead of just telling the patients (i.e. lie to them) that they were being prayed for.

There was a 7% difference in a group of roughly 600 people. The degree of certainty that the test was made with affects the significants of that percentage. A sample of six hundred is too low for a 95% degree of certainty so statistically this result is very near a clear 1:2 as it should. The actual difference is just coincidence, it could have fallen either way.

Also Doofy hits it right on the spot.

cheers

W-Y

[Dark Helmet]

As you can tell Weyland-Yutani is completely unbiased.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, they actually prayed for them.

No, you didn't read the study, nor my post, carefully enough. They had both people who thought they were being prayed for but weren't and people who thought they were being prayed for and actually were.

Your suggestion that "A sample of six hundred is too low for a 95% degree of certainty so statistically this result is very near a clear 1:2 as it should" just makes no sense, and I teach graduate statistics. You can't know if the difference was statistically significant just from the sample size and the mean difference. I haven't looked for full access to the article, but one description I read suggested that the difference was reliable, that believing you were being prayed for had a negative effect.

The reason they went through with the second step of actually having people pray was because if they didn't, they'd have people complaining about that. It makes perfect sense for them to use that as an additional condition. The study would look like a sham if they hadn't done that.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Kevin

For every study that says that, I can find 5 that show otherwise.

Go ahead. I am curious to know.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, they actually prayed for them.



I don't see why they actually went through with that part instead of just telling the patients (i.e. lie to them) that they were being prayed for.

There was a 7% difference in a group of roughly 600 people. The degree of certainty that the test was made with affects the significants of that percentage. A sample of six hundred is too low for a 95% degree of certainty so statistically this result is very near a clear 1:2 as it should. The actual difference is just coincidence, it could have fallen either way.

You don't know much about statistics, do you?

Actually, a sample of 120 would have been enough, if not less.

Also Doofy hits it right on the spot.

cheers

W-Y

Why are you guys fighting over things that cannot be compared? Compare the comparable, only.

Matters of the religious can only be compared with beliefs, whilst matters of science with the measurable.

Prayer is not making people healthier; it makes them feel supported, and it is not so much the act pf praying that helps, than the feeling of comfort of not being alone. And yet, that may only make death more supportable because people feel that whatever they did during their life could not have been so bad since people pray for them. Prayer may help people regain some strength to fight for life. But even then, there is no way to tell prayer, in itself, could have an effect.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Prayer is not making people healthier; it makes them feel supported, and it is not so much the act pf praying that helps, than the feeling of comfort of not being alone. And yet, that may only make death more supportable because people feel that whatever they did during their life could not have been so bad since people pray for them. Prayer may help people regain some strength to fight for life. But even then, there is no way to tell prayer, in itself, could have an effect.

According to this study, it's not even doing that - knowing you're being prayed for is having a statistically significant negative effect on their health.

Perhaps "the pressure is on" when people know they're being prayed for, and that somehow interferes with health. Or it could just be an anomaly, because there are some other studies that show positive effects. This is the largest study to date, though.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

No, you didn't read the study, nor my post, carefully enough. They had both people who thought they were being prayed for but weren't and people who thought they were being prayed for and actually were.

Your suggestion that "A sample of six hundred is too low for a 95% degree of certainty so statistically this result is very near a clear 1:2 as it should" just makes no sense, and I teach graduate statistics. You can't know if the difference was statistically significant just from the sample size and the mean difference. I haven't looked for full access to the article, but one description I read suggested that the difference was reliable, that believing you were being prayed for had a negative effect.

The reason they went through with the second step of actually having people pray was because if they didn't, they'd have people complaining about that. It makes perfect sense for them to use that as an additional condition. The study would look like a sham if they hadn't done that.

Yes I read it carefully enough. There isn't much information there anyway.

Regardless when you know the population, there are two options (better/worse) and you know the result then the confidence increases with sample frequency. According to my tables, you'd need something close to a sample frequency of 1000 to get 0.95 confidence.

120 is laughable btw and 600 not enough for 0.95 confidence. Simple as that.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

here is ample proof that prayer works. Many scientific studies have been conducted that validate this observation.

A 1993 Israeli survey following 10,000 civil servants for 26 years found that Orthodox Jews were less likely to die of cardiovascular problems than "nonbelievers." And a 1995 study from Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H., monitoring 250 people after open-heart surgery concluded that those who had religious connections and social support were 12 times less likely to die than those who had none.

In an attempt to understand the depression that often accompanies hospitalization, Duke University researchers assessed 1,000 hospital patients from 1987 to 1989; patients who drew on religious practices, including prayer, were found to cope far better than those who didn't.

NIH recently convened a panel to determine the merits of integrating conventional medicine with behavioral and relaxation therapies to treat hypertension. The team found that the conflation of therapies, of which prayer was a key component, "can lower one's breathing rate, heart rate, and blood pressure."

The University of New Mexico in Albuquerque is studying the power of prayer to heal alcoholics. And there is a prayer-and-healing study in progress at Bastyr University in Seattle, Washington, the nation's leading naturopathic-training institute. Certainly, following a spiritual or religious lifestyle might lead to better health; the devout may be less likely to succumb to the hazards of smoking, drinking, and sleeping around. However, for the non-believers, it is hard to understand how intercessory or non-local prayer works. This is thew situation when the sick persons are prayed for and don't even know it.

In the most widely publicized studies of the effect of intercessory prayer, cardiologist Randolph Byrd studied 393 patients admitted to the coronary-care unit at San Francisco General Hospital. Some were prayed for by home-prayer groups, others were not. All the men and women got medical care. In this randomized, double-blind study, neither the doctors and nurses nor the patients knew who would be the object of prayer.

The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more. The prayed-for patients were:

Significantly less likely to require antibiotics (3 patients versus 16)
Significantly less likely to develop pulmonary edema-a condition in which the lungs fill with fluid because the heart cannot pump properly (6 versus 18).
Significantly less likely to require insertion of a tube into the throat to assist breathing (0 versus 12).
Less likely to die (but this difference was not statistically significant).
Even more outrageous experiments in distance healing involve nonhuman subjects. In a survey of 131 controlled experiments on spiritual healing, it was found that prayed-for rye grass grew taller; prayed-for yeast resisted the toxic effects of cyanide; prayed-for test-tube bacteria grew faster. "I adore these experiments," says Larry Dossey, M.D., perhaps the world's most vocal expert on prayer and medicine. "Because they don't involve humans, you can run them with fanatical precision and you can run them hundreds of times. It's the best evidence of all that prayer can change the world. And it operates as strongly on the other side of the Earth as it does at the bedside."

In his 1994 book, Healing Words, Larry Dossey, M.D., co-chair of the Panel on Mind-Body Interventions of the Office of Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Washington, D.C., reviewed over 100 experiments, most published in parapsychological literature ' on the effects of prayer/visualization. More than half showed an effect on everything from seed germination to wound healing.

In several experiments, volunteers visualized stimulating or retarding the growth of bacteria and fungi and achieved significantly positive results from as far as 15 miles away.
At the Mind Science Foundation in San Antonio, Texas, researchers took blood samples from 32 volunteers, isolated their red blood cells (RBCS) and placed the samples in a room on the other side of the building. Then the researchers placed the RBCs in a solution designed to swell and burst them, a process that can be measured extremely accurately. Next the researchers asked the volunteers to pray for the preservation of some of the RBCS. To help them visualize, the researchers projected color slides of healthy RBCS. The praying significantly slowed the swelling and bursting of the RBCS.
In another study at the Mind Science Foundation, volunteers in a room on one side of the building were asked to visualize volunteers in a room on the other side of the building becoming calmer or more agitated. Meanwhile, the "receivers" were hooked up to biofeedback-type equipment to gauge their reactions. The results showed that the "influencers" exerted a statistically significant effect on the receivers' moods.
These experiments have shown that prayer can take many forms. Results occurred not only when people prayed for explicit outcomes, but also when they prayed for nothing specific.

The experiments showed that a simple "Thy will be done" approach was quantitatively more powerful than when specific results were held in mind.

A simple attitude of prayerfulness, an all pervading sense of holiness and a feeling of empathy, caring, and compassion for the entity in need, seemed to set the stage for healing.

Experiments also showed that prayer positively affected:

High Blood Pressure
Wounds
Heart Attacks
Headaches, and
Anxiety.
The subjects in these studies included:

Water
Enzymes
Bacteria
Fungi
Yeast
Red blood cells
Cancer cells
Pacemaker cells
Seeds
Plants
Algae
Moth larvae
Mice
Chicks
The processes that had been influenced by prayer were:

Activity of enzymes
The growth rate of leukemic white blood cells
Mutation rates of bacteria
Germination and grwth rates of various seeds
Firing rate of pacemaker cells
Healing rates of wounds
The size of goiters and tumors
Time required to awaken from anesthesia
Autonomic effects such as electrodermal activity of the skin, rates of hemolysis of red blood cells and hemoglobin levels.

[Kevin]

It did not matter whether the praying person was with the person who was prayed for the power of prayer to work. You can pray for someone who is far away and still will have an influence on the outcome.

Nothing seems to block or stop the effects of prayer - the object in one study was placed in a lead-lined room and in another in a cage that shielded it from all known forms of electromagnetic energy, the effect still go through.

Given the scientific evidence, Dossey and several other researchers now admit that withholding prayer from an ailing patient is downright irresponsible. "It became an ethical issue for me," says Dossey, who defines prayer as "communication with the absolute."

At a Boston conference sponsored by Harvard Medical School, one of the participants predicted that in just 10 years patients will be questioned about not only their personal medical history but also their spiritual belief system.

Certainly, the idea of distance healing is catching on even today. Cyberspace is full of fellow believers who post their requests on daily prayer chains. Those who believe in distance healing are not sure how it works, though theories abound. Some say it involves sending some kind of subtle, as-yet-unidentified energy to the person in need. Others, including Dossey, say quantum physics may play a role, or what Cambridge-trained biologist Rupert Sheldrake calls "morphogenetic fields," unabounded by space or time.

In the absence of hard data, it remains a mystery or a miracle.

The other kind of prayer, in which sick people pray for their own recovery, is far easier for science to explain. Given the proven health benefits of meditation — lowering blood pressure, reversing heart disease — it's not difficult to see how prayer, which can be equally meditative and relaxing, might induce the same effects.

According to Koenig of Duke University, "when prayer uplifts or calms, it inhibits cortisol, epinephrine, and norepinephrine - hormones that flow out of the adrenal glands in response to stress. These fight-or-flight chemicals, released over time can compromise the immune system, upping the odds of developing any number of illnesses, including heart disease, stroke, peptic ulcers, and inflammatory bowel disorder (IBS)." Many experts feel that the immune system is strengthened and nourished by a sense of peace, which can be transferred from one individual to another or used inwardly. Of course, the ancient stories of the Bible and seminal works of Eastern religions link healing with faith.So, it is reasonable to assume that something such as prayer that provides comfort and peace would influence the propensity for you to get disease or how you recover from a disease.

Recent scientific investigation shows that prayer can be used as an alternative therapy as successfully as meditation, exercise, or herbalism. A study of 91,000 people in rural Maryland showed that weekly church attendees had 50 percent fewer deaths from heart disease than non-churchgoers and 53 percent fewer suicides. Churchgoers have lower blood pressure levels than nonbelievers, even after smoking and other known risk factors are taken into consideration.

Many doctors believe that if they prayed with their patients before and after surgery or before administering a course of powerful drugs, this treatment might assist in the patient's recovery. Thirty medical schools in America are now offering courses in faith and medicine.

"Prayer works," says Dr. Matthews, associate professor of medicine at Georgetown University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., and senior research fellow at the National Institute for Healthcare Research in Rockville, Maryland. Dr. Matthews has reviewed more than 200 studies linking religious commitment and health, cited in his book, 'The Faith Factor'.

Dr. Matthews cites studies suggesting that people who pray are less likely to get sick, are more likely to recover from surgery and illness and are better able to cope with their illnesses than people who don't pray. Some evidence indicates that sick people who are prayed for also fare significantly better than those who aren't. In fact, some physicians report that people who are prayed for often do better even if they don't know they're being prayed for.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

According to my tables, you'd need something close to a sample frequency of 1000 to get 0.95 confidence.

120 is laughable btw and 600 not enough for 0.95 confidence. Simple as that.

I'm sorry but that's just factually inaccurate. People run studies all the time with 10 subjects per condition that give statistically significant results. To argue that you need more than 600 subjects is simply absurd. It depends on effect size and variability in addition to sample size. You can't just say you need x sample size to obtain a reliable difference without knowing that other information. And that difference between 59% and 52% was statistically significant in this study, whether you like it or not.

[Dark Helmet]

Weyland-Yutani is "praying" we all believe in God and the study is de-credited.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by BRussell

According to this study, it's not even doing that - knowing you're being prayed for is having a statistically significant negative effect on their health.

Perhaps "the pressure is on" when people know they're being prayed for, and that somehow interferes with health. Or it could just be an anomaly, because there are some other studies that show positive effects. This is the largest study to date, though.

That makes sense.

The time around the dying (which is what I had in mind, since I worked with the dying and the ressuscitated as well) is a very sensitive one. So many things are happening!

In the field, the clinical psychologists often have to deal with a family in crisis, as well as the dying not being ready. (I did not read this study yet, but I will). People suffering from an incurable disease live a very complex inner life. That prayer is used to help does carry a stigma that "prayer is the last option" and can probably precipitate depression, or aggravate it in some cases, which will have an effect on the overall selfconcept of that person.

As I mention earlier, prayer can be of some support, but if the sick believe they are condemned, the fact that they are prayed for is just motivation to die in peace. I have been told lots of stories of people delaying their death on their own, so that they can say this or that to so-and-so.

But maybe tha fact that people pray for them is like a kick in the butt to encourage them to fight and stay alive.

It is a strange phase of our lives.

I have a friend whose wife died recently after 4 years fighting cancer. The attitude of that woman was one of total control. She told everyone who could hear that she would die only after she'd get to 40 years of age. When they diagnosed her, they gave her a year. She died 4 years later, after a cancer that got everywhere in her body. She actually stopped fighting when the oncologist told her that the next treatment was likely to kill her. And she died 3 months after she celebrated her 40th aniversary.

One of my great-grand fathers died seconds after he told a secret to his eldest sons. He had to wait to tell him.

A friend of mine saw her father died after his wife came to his death bed. She had him wait 2 hours because she was busy doing spaghetti sauce. When they told her it was urgent, she said: "he's been waiting to die for 6 months now. He can certainly wait until I am done with my sauce!" There is no miracle at work here. I believe the psyche can work in one's favor (up to a point, obviously!).

I would not be surprised that prayer can actually interfere in one's inner belief about destiny, and make many of them feel that it should be a good reason to leave for good. It is easy to give up, and putting on a fight requires energy rarely available for depressed people, and that is true for most of the dying, or those suffering from a terminal disease.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Yes I read it carefully enough. There isn't much information there anyway.

Regardless when you know the population, there are two options (better/worse) and you know the result then the confidence increases with sample frequency. According to my tables, you'd need something close to a sample frequency of 1000 to get 0.95 confidence.

120 is laughable btw and 600 not enough for 0.95 confidence. Simple as that.

cheers

W-Y

You are totally entitled to believe what you believe in. But that does not mean you are right. I am sorry.

Prayer may not have the effect you expected, but it does not mean it is useless. What counts is that you feel it useful for yourself, if that is the case, of course.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Kevin, please provide references.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

I'm sorry but that's just factually inaccurate. People run studies all the time with 10 subjects per condition that give statistically significant results.

You know as well as I do that depends on what margin of error is acceptable. If you are studying the effect of paracetamol on headaches then 10 people will give a statistically significant result because the result will be 90-100% that paracetamol has an effect on headaches.

If you're researching how people will vote for your next President, then ten people won't cut it statistically because you're searching for an accurate point around an expected 1:2. Research is done with expectation and the sample size matters, depending what you're searching for.

The result of this research *should* have been expected to be exactly 1:2 and I'm sure the researchers expected that. Meaning that half of the people prayed for should have improved and half should have become worse. This is assuming that there isn't a group that didn't show indication either way and indeed the results are posted like that. Either people got a bit better or they got a bit worse.

A slight deviation from 0.5 could be interpreted as an interesting find, so the confidence level has to be at least 0.95 IMO. I wouldn't go for 0.9 in this case, but it is a question of what one deems significant.

Originally Posted by BRussell

To argue that you need more than 600 subjects is simply absurd. It depends on effect size and variability in addition to sample size.

Heck no! It depends on what result and accuracy is acceptable. The researchers can well decide for themselves what is significant based on confidence levels for instance.

Originally Posted by BRussell

You can't just say you need x sample size to obtain a reliable difference without knowing that other information. And that difference between 59% and 52% was statistically significant in this study, whether you like it or not.

There is nothing in that press release that indicates that this was statistically significant. It reads like a sensation pop-sci to me. To find if a population leans to one of two directions when it is expected to lean equally in both then you need a large sample size of around 1000 persons. There is no way around that, because there is a desired accuracy indicated in the premise of the research. Seven percent is too small for a group of 600.

Of course if repeated and the same results are obtainted, then we can talk.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Weyland-Yutani is "praying" we all believe in God and the study is de-credited.

No, but I am vainly hoping that people don't take research results seriously that they read in newspapers or on the interweb.

This is just another piece of pop-sci that is worth the five minutes or so it is interesting to discuss it with people over the coffee at work. Nothing more.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

You are totally entitled to believe what you believe in.

Why thank you

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

But that does not mean you are right. I am sorry.

We're discussing a dubious psychological research that for some unknown reason to actual scientists used people to actually pray. That is what is the most confusing part about this research, since the actual praying part wasn't necessary to create the desired effect on the patients.

I am right about the statistical validity of this research (as it is presented in the news article though - that's not faith, that's math)

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Prayer may not have the effect you expected, but it does not mean it is useless.

In this case, I expected it to have absoloutly 0% effect, as would every serious scientists. I suspect that was the case.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

What counts is that you feel it useful for yourself, if that is the case, of course.

I suppose you could describe it as useful, but I don't see it like that. Praying is part of my life, like breathing. I suppose you could describe breathing as useful as well, but it isn't very accurate.

cheers

W-Y

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

No, but I am vainly hoping that people don't take research results seriously that they read in newspapers or on the interweb.

This is just another piece of pop-sci that is worth the five minutes or so it is interesting to discuss it with people over the coffee at work. Nothing more.

cheers

W-Y

You are pretty quick to judge.

American Heart Journal

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer

Herbert Benson, MDal, Jeffery A. Dusek, PhDal, Jane B. Sherwood, RNm, Peter Lam, PhDm, Charles F. Bethea, MDb, William Carpenter, MDivc, Sidney Levitsky, MDd, Peter C. Hill, MDe, Donald W. Clem Jr., MAf, Manoj K. Jain, MD, MPHg, David Drumel, MDivgh, Stephen L. Kopecky, MDi, Paul S. Mueller, MDj, Dean Marekk, Sue Rollins, RN, MPHb, Patricia L. Hibberd, MD, PhDlm
Received 5 January 2005; accepted 6 May 2005

Abstract
Background
Intercessory prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness, but claims of benefits are not supported by well-controlled clinical trials. Prior studies have not addressed whether prayer itself or knowledge/certainty that prayer is being provided may influence outcome. We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

Methods
Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups: 604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

Results
In the 2 groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% CI 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% CI 1.02-1.28). Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups.

Conclusions
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

Note:

This study was supported by the John Templeton Foundation. The Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation supported the Baptist Memorial Health Care Corporation site only.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

In this case, I expected it to have absoloutly 0% effect, as would every serious scientists. I suspect that was the case.

Nope. A real scientist makes hypotheses. And to presuppose as you do that prayer would have a zero effect, is one of those hypotheses.

I suppose you could describe it as useful, but I don't see it like that. Praying is part of my life, like breathing. I suppose you could describe breathing as useful as well, but it isn't very accurate.

cheers

W-Y

I guess there are just many ways to talk about it, as there are points of view.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

You are pretty quick to judge.

American Heart Journal



Note:

Touché.

Thanks for the link. I'm not paying $30 for reading the full text though.

The abstract is revealing though. There is no control group, that is a group of people being prayed for but not told at all about it either way.

What is significant is that there weren't really 3 groups, just two. One of 1201 persons another of 601 persons. And no control group. Tsk tsk.

"604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer; 597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer"

The 604+597 people were told that they might or might not be prayed for. This is a statistically significant size of people, 1201. Not surprisingly, this group shows a clear indication of no effect. It splits 0.5 as expected.

In the 601 person group there was more deviation, but then again that sample size isn't enough to weigh against the more powerful and accurate sample size of the 1201 where it was shown that there is no difference.

This article is amusing, but not indicative of anything and their conclusion is rather strange because it ignores the largest sample results and it doesn't have a control group.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Nope. A real scientist makes hypotheses. And to presuppose as you do that prayer would have a zero effect, is one of those hypotheses.

That would be the hypothesis: 0% effect. In fact, that is exactly what I see as the result of the study, since the statistically signifiant group has a clear enough 50/50 tendancy and the less significant group has similar results and there was no control group.

cheers

W-Y

[BRussell]

W-Y: I'm sorry to say this, but you're just full of it in this thread. It wasn't two groups it was three, the negative effect of knowing that you were being prayed for was statistically significant, it was a very well-done study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal not a pop study in a magazine, and your discussion of sample size and statistical significance makes no sense. Sorry, but it just has to be said.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

This article is amusing, but not indicative of anything and their conclusion is rather strange because it ignores the largest sample results and it doesn't have a control group.

cheers

W-Y

They're medical doctors. What did you expect?

imho I think they do suggest (but I agree confirmation studies are an important part of this) that prayer is either inefficient, or in some cases seem to have a negative effect to the health status.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

W-Y: I'm sorry to say this, but you're just full of it in this thread. It wasn't two groups it was three, the negative effect of knowing that you were being prayed for was statistically significant, it was a very well-done study published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal not a pop study in a magazine, and your discussion of sample size and statistical significance makes no sense. Sorry, but it just has to be said.

I'm sorry, but you're full of it. There were two groups not three, no control group and the sample size of 601 isn't enough to explain a 7% difference.

This was a pretty shoddy research and that it was printed proves nothing.

cheers

W-Y

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

That would be the hypothesis: 0% effect. In fact, that is exactly what I see as the result of the study, since the statistically signifiant group has a clear enough 50/50 tendancy and the less significant group has similar results and there was no control group.

cheers

W-Y

Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups:

They clearly say "3":

1)

604 received intercessory prayer after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer;

2)

597 did not receive intercessory prayer also after being informed that they may or may not receive prayer;

3)

and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer.

Conditions:

Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event and mortality.

Hypotheses(2):

We evaluated whether (1) receiving intercessory prayer or (2) being certain of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with uncomplicated recovery after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery.

The conditions are clear, parameters are strong as well. There is no need of a control group group here, or elsewhere, since what is measured is the change from the application of prayer, being aware or not. Actually, the quasi-control group is the one receiving prayer, and made aware of it. Hypotheses were clear as well and tested satisfactorily. If you do not agree with the statistical methods, I suggest you pay the $30 dollars necessary to review the article, dissect, analyse and criticize the specific methods used, and share these with us here.

Also, it would have been inhumane a research to tell patients with certainty that no one would pray for them, as it would probably have precipitated their despair. It would have become an unethical research.

In the meantime, I will rely on the panel of experts who reviewed that research. Nothing personal.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

I'm sorry, but you're full of it. There were two groups not three, no control group and the sample size of 601 isn't enough to explain a 7% difference.

This was a pretty shoddy research and that it was printed proves nothing.

cheers

W-Y

So these facts mean nothing to you?

1) the actual article says there were three groups - you can read the abstract in this thread, which says "Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups."

2) the actual article says that the negative results of believing you were being prayed for were statistically significant - again in the abstract it says "certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications." You can't say that unless it's a statistically reliable difference. Also, an editorial about the piece is freely accessible in the current issue of the journal, and it also says the negative effect was statistically significant: "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."

Those facts contradict what you're claiming, and yet you simply don't care? You're right in your own mind despite all the evidence to the contrary? And your discussion of stats makes no sense to me, even though I teach statistics to psychology grad students. I just don't get it.

[edit] Felizecat you beat me to it. I don't understand where W-Y is coming from in this thread.

[Weyland-Yutani]

There is no difference between groups 1 and 2.

I'll break it down for you:

Group 1 gets told that they either get prayed for or not - they are all prayed for (604 persons)

Group 2 gets told that they either get prayed for or not - they get no prayers (597 persons)

That means 1201 persons were told the exact same thing, that they'd possibly get prayed for and half of them received prayer and half not but not one person knew whether they were receiving prayer or not. Thus they were all in the same group of people, i.e. the group that was told that they might or might not receive prayer.

There was no group of people that was not told that they'd receive prayer and were prayed for (a control group) yet there was one group of 601 perons (the second group confusingly called group 3) who were told they would receive prayer and did receive prayer.

Groups 1 and 2 share the exact same premise and the results are not surprisingly exactly the same.

cheers

W-Y

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Weyland-Yutani is "praying" we all believe in God and the study is de-credited.

Read my last twp posts sugar-tits.

[Weyland-Yutani]

@BRussell

Perhaps you're not a very good teacher of statistics? I remember one professor at my university who tought statistics. He was very bad at it, but fortunately he was just the assistant.

This is elementary anyway. High-school stuff. There are two groups, the article discusses three because they decide to define it as such but there are just two groups.

And no control group.

cheers

W-Y

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Read my last twp posts sugar-tits.

There are actually a number of well-done studies showing positive effects of prayer. My understanding, after reading about this topic a little in the past several days, is that there are only a handful (maybe 6) really serious, controlled studies on prayer and healing, and most of them have been pretty positive. That's why a large study like this Benson study can get funded for millions of dollars. But it's also pretty clear that, although this was probably the most extensive study done to date, it didn't show positive effects. That will keep the prayer researchers in business for more studies in the future anyway.

There was also that study a few weeks ago showing that low-fat diets aren't helpful either, so maybe it's just a bad year for health studies.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

There is no difference between groups 1 and 2.

I'll break it down for you:

Group 1 gets told that they either get prayed for or not - they are all prayed for (604 persons)

Group 2 gets told that they either get prayed for or not - they get no prayers (597 persons)

That means 1201 persons were told the exact same thing, that they'd possibly get prayed for and half of them received prayer and half not but not one person knew whether they were receiving prayer or not. Thus they were all in the same group of people, i.e. the group that was told that they might or might not receive prayer.

No. That means prayer does not have "spooky effects" à la "entanglement", meaning, prayer does not affect the health of people by some "ghostly" phenomenon.

There was no group of people that was not told that they'd receive prayer and were prayed for (a control group) yet there was one group of 601 persons (the second group confusingly called group 3) who were told they would receive prayer and did receive prayer.

Please note that you think the third group is "confusingly called" group 3.

And that group showed an aggravation of their condition.

Groups 1 and 2 share the exact same premise and the results are not surprisingly exactly the same.

No, they are not. But because of your own premises, they do.

cheers

W-Y

Cheers to you to!

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There are actually a number of well-done studies showing positive effects of prayer. My understanding, after reading about this topic a little in the past several days, is that there are only a handful (maybe 6) really serious, controlled studies on prayer and healing, and most of them have been pretty positive. That's why a large study like this Benson study can get funded for millions of dollars. But it's also pretty clear that, although this was probably the most extensive study done to date, it didn't show positive effects. That will keep the prayer researchers in business for more studies in the future anyway.

There was also that study a few weeks ago showing that low-fat diets aren't helpful either, so maybe it's just a bad year for health studies.

LOL

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

@BRussell

Perhaps you're not a very good teacher of statistics? I remember one professor at my university who tought statistics. He was very bad at it, but fortunately he was just the assistant.

This is elementary anyway. High-school stuff. There are two groups, the article discusses three because they decide to define it as such but there are just two groups.

And no control group.

cheers

W-Y

It's three but in your mind the third doesn't really count for some reason and therefore it's really only two even though the three groups received different treatments. And 1200 is a "statistically significant size of people" but 600 is not, even though a sample can't itself be "statistically significant" because statistical significance depends on the effect size (i.e., the difference between the groups) and the variability within the groups in addition to the N.

Uh-huh. Stop digging yourself deeper, please, it's embarrassing.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell

There are actually a number of well-done studies showing positive effects of prayer.

More so than not.

But tell these jokers that.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

No. That means prayer does not have "spooky effects" à la "entanglement", meaning, prayer does not affect the health of people by some "ghostly" phenomenon.

Prayer does not have any effect, how could it from a scientific point of view?! If it did *either way* then how would you explain that? That there is a God? Is this some lame ass attempt to prove or disprove the existance of God?

This "research" is beyond shoddy, both how it was made and what it is supposed to prove.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

Please note that you think the third group is "confusingly called" group 3.

That group should be called group 2. Those prayed for and knew it. 601 persons. Those who didn't know either way: 1201 persons. That would be group 1.

Tell 1000 people they may or may not be receiving a painkiller but half of them receives a painkiller and the rest placebo.

This one group, not two.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

And that group showed an aggravation of their condition.

Not statistically significant, especially in light of the results of group 1.

Originally Posted by FeLiZeCaT

No, they are not. But because of your own premises, they do.

Yes they are exactly the same. 51% and 52%. Statistically utterly the same. There are no premises in that result, just math.

cheers

W-Y

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by BRussell

It's three but in your mind the third doesn't really count for some reason and therefore it's really only two even though the three groups received different treatments. And 1200 is a "statistically significant size of people" but 600 is not, even though a sample can't itself be "statistically significant" because statistical significance depends on the effect size (i.e., the difference between the groups) and the variability within the groups in addition to the N.

Uh-huh. Stop digging yourself deeper, please, it's embarrassing.

See, I was right. You're just not very good.

Perhaps you won't make a carrier out of statistics or teaching it? I hope so.

cheers

W-Y

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

See, I was right. You're just not very good.

Perhaps you won't make a carrier out of statistics or teaching it? I hope so.

cheers

W-Y

I can see you make a "carrier" out of posting stuff when you have no idea what you're talking about and then insulting people who do when they call you out on your BS-ing. Analyzing studies and statistics is my "carrier" and it's very clear to anyone who can read that abstract that you're not making any sense. I don't care, I don't know about a lot of things either. But I sure hope I don't try to pretend like I do and make as big of an ass out of myself as you're doing here.

There were three groups: 600 people who were told they might get prayed for but weren't, 600 people who were told they might get prayed for and were, and 600 people who were told they would for sure be prayed for and were. It's not two. It's three.

Those three groups allow two basic comparisons: Between those who were prayed for and those who weren't, and between those who knew they were being prayed for and those who weren't sure. It would have been nice to see a comparison to people who thought they weren't being prayed for, but the researchers probably felt that would have been unethical, as felizecat pointed out.

According to the authors, there was no effect of being prayed for, but there was a negative effect of thinking you were being prayed for. In the absence of their actual data, there's no way for you to sit there and say they're wrong and you're right about what their data show.

[FeLiZeCaT]

Originally Posted by Weyland-Yutani

Prayer does not have any effect, how could it from a scientific point of view?! If it did *either way* then how would you explain that? That there is a God? Is this some lame ass attempt to prove or disprove the existance of God?

Now you are downing the fish. I think this is what ticks you. You are taking it the wrong way. It is scientifically looking at ways to see if prayer has an effect. God is not yet involved in that picture.

This "research" is beyond shoddy, both how it was made and what it is supposed to prove.

That is pure judgement, with nno argumentations to sustain it. Unfortunately, what you provided so far is insufficient to criticize it adequately.

That group should be called group 2. Those prayed for and knew it. 601 persons. Those who didn't know either way: 1201 persons. That would be group 1.

You want it so bad you are just not reading. Sometimes, being too close to the the forest makes you bkind because of that one tree you are watching. Yet, there is a whole forest to look at!

Tell 1000 people they may or may not be receiving a painkiller but half of them receives a painkiller and the rest placebo.

We are talking of prayer here.

This one group, not two.

Not statistically significant, especially in light of the results of group 1.

What you are discarding is time. Group three showed aggravation of their condition with time, despite the use of prayer, and them being aware of it.

Yes they are exactly the same. 51% and 52%. Statistically utterly the same. There are no premises in that result, just math.

cheers

W-Y

I will not argue further with you unless you prove the panel is incompetent in judging a study for which all we have is the abstract. This is where Faith as some place. I am taking a chance that the panel's members did their job. If you disagree, fine, but at least, admit you just don't have Faith in a panel of experts, and that your judgement is conditional to your revision of the study in its details.

Until then, you basically have nothing to debate with, except your perception of an abstract.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Weyland-Yutani has just made the honour of my ignore list. Ask everyone else on it, you'll be happy to know I never read any of your crapola agian.

Ta ta

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Weyland-Yutani has just made the honour of my ignore list. Ask everyone else on it, you'll be happy to know I never read any of your crapola agian.

Ta ta

Actually, you have quite the habit of responding to people you claim are on your ignore list.

I have pointed this out about half a dozen times.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Weyland-Yutani has just made the honour of my ignore list. Ask everyone else on it, you'll be happy to know I never read any of your crapola agian.

Ta ta

One Big Fat Lie.

[Taliesin]

A study about the healing effects of prayer?

Since when can you test an omnipotent and omniscient God?

He could quite easily have arranged the study by exactly defining who gets sick in what way to be part of this study, and as such bring the results He wants, so that there is no proof for His existence.

Besides, the study doesn't take into account the prayers of the family, neighbours, far relates, friends, colleagues... that would pretty much distort the study completely, and it also doesn't account God's will and thoughts regarding the persons receiving surgery.

Lastly, the study has merely concentrated on christian prayers, instead of including muslim and jewish prayers/sick people. Maybe prayers to Jesus aren't as effective as prayers to God?

Taliesin