Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in Coronary Care Unit Population

[devnull]

That's it! We all must convert!

PROOF PRAYER WORKS!!!111!!!!!ONE!111!!!ELEVENTEEN!!!11!! (http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/1988/07000/Positive_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory.5.asp x)

Just TRY wriggling out of this proof heathens!

[bpesta22]

That article is 21 years old?

I assume lots of replications have been done to confirm the effect.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

That article is 21 years old?

I assume lots of replications have been done to confirm the effect.
Um.
In answer to your questions:

Yes

and

No.

:(

[fls]

That's it! We all must convert!

PROOF PRAYER WORKS!!!111!!!!!ONE!111!!!ELEVENTEEN!!!11!! (http://journals.lww.com/smajournalonline/Abstract/1988/07000/Positive_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory.5.asp x)

Just TRY wriggling out of this proof heathens!

Wow. Thirty different outcome variables to choose from.

Linda

[Puppycow]

I love that abstract. Just substitute something like "administration of the test drug" for "intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God" and it reads like almost any other clinical study out there.

Excerpt:
At entry, chi-square and stepwise logistic analysis revealed no statistical difference between the groups. After entry, all patients had follow-up for the remainder of the admission. The IP group subsequently had a significantly lower severity score based on the hospital course after entry (P<.01). Multivariant analysis separated the groups on the basis of the outcome variables (P<.0001). The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.

[Puppycow]

Wow. Thirty different outcome variables to choose from.

Linda

I think I know what you are saying, but I'm a layperson. Are you saying that they hand-picked the most favorable outcome variables after the fact?

[fls]

I think I know what you are saying, but I'm a layperson. Are you saying that they hand-picked the most favorable outcome variables after the fact?

Yes. They don't even try to pretend otherwise. The author even admits that with so many variables, the differences can't be held to be statistically significant.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/smj.pdf

Linda

[Puppycow]

Thanks for the info, Linda!

[pakeha]

I remember when this study came out; how excited we were at the prospect prayer actually could have a therapeutic effect, if only to 'tip the balance'.
Dear me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the most recent findings point to either a 'nil' or even slightly negative effect, due to the anxiety produced by the patient's desire to live up to the pray-ers' expectations of success.

[Skeptic Ginger]

That article is 21 years old?

I assume lots of replications have been done to confirm the effect.And we've discussed it ad nauseum as well Psicop or the Skeptical Inquirer or someone did a thorough review article on that one as well as the slew of them which at the time were touted by the fundies as vindication. Of course if God answers prayers, one wonders what all those children burned alive in fires or their parents did to deserve God's wrath.

[Hux]

The most recent findings show clearly that those who knew they were the subject of prayers fared badly! Those who had no knowledge of being prayed for did exactly as expected.

The study was invoked, I think, by the Templeton Foundation, who are dedicated to paying scientists to find some sort of religious foundation in science. They approach many main stream scientists with big bucks. Thankfully most say no. But they screwed up with this study and tried to stifle the results as I recall.

[Maia]

Gee, here's an idea: how about if all the people who prayed for the patients in all of these studies actually got off of their butts and spent the same amount of time volunteering at the hospitals involved? :rolleyes: No, no... we can't have that... it might actually accomplish something.

[Wolfman]

Let us assume that the data from this study is valid, and that the conclusions were accurate (assumptions that I don't think would stand strict scrutiny, but for the sake of argument)...

This plainly states that prayer was to the Judeo-Christian god. Would the researchers not then be beholden to have prayer to other gods, also? If it were found that this happened only when people prayed to the Judeo-Christian god, and not to any other god (and that the actual data and conclusions stood up to scrutiny), that would be evidence for a claim that their god was answering prayers.

On the other hand, if the same effect were to be found when praying to any god, one would have to conclude that either A) it doesn't matter which god you pray to, or B) there is some sort of placebo effect taking place.

Putting all other errors and problems aside, the fact that they did not attempt such a thing in and of itself demonstrates there was no real desire to determine an objective truth; but rather, that they were seeking specific conclusions to support their hypothesis, and were not interested in any information or data that might contradict them.

[AvalonXQ]

The abstract indicates that the study was "double blind". How do you do an intercessory prayer study "double blind"? Do some of the Christians think they're praying but they're actually not?

[Wolfman]

The abstract indicates that the study was "double blind". How do you do an intercessory prayer study "double blind"? Do some of the Christians think they're praying but they're actually not?Perhaps patients will just be given a designation like "Patient A", "Patient B", etc....and the people doing the praying are given only that info, so is impossible for them to know which patient they're praying for (but obviously God would know).

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here's a study published in the BMJ that should make any skeptic question how these study results are being interpreted.

Beyond science?
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450)Intervention: In July 2000 patients were randomised to a control group and an intervention group. A remote, retroactive intercessory prayer was said for the well being and full recovery of the intervention group.
Main outcome measures: Mortality in hospital, length of stay in hospital, and duration of fever.
Results: Mortality was 28.1% (475/1691) in the intervention group and 30.2% (514/1702) in the control group (P for difference=0.4). Length of stay in hospital and duration of fever were significantly shorter in the intervention group than in the control group (P=0.01 and P=0.04, respectively).
Conclusions: Remote, retroactive intercessory prayer said for a group is associated with a shorter stay in hospital and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection and should be considered for use in clinical practice.

The people prayed for in the future did better in the past. :boggled:

[AvalonXQ]

The people prayed for in the future did better in the past. :boggled:

This is consistent with my understanding of prayer -- God is atemporal, and there's no reason to believe that the positive effects of His intervention are limited causally.

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is consistent with my understanding of prayer -- God is atemporal, and there's no reason to believe that the positive effects of His intervention are limited causally.That would be one possible interpretation of those study results. I tend to think the mundane conclusion, the study is flawed, is the Occams Razor here.

Feel free to find us some repeatable results that demonstrate otherwise. :cool:

[devnull]

you mean this wasnt a water-tight study?

Who'd have thunk it????

[pakeha]

Here's a study published in the BMJ that should make any skeptic question how these study results are being interpreted.

Beyond science?
Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial (http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450)

The people prayed for in the future did better in the past. :boggled:

Has this been replicated in some future study?

[pakeha]

From the linked article:
What is already known on this topic
Two randomised controlled trials of remote intercessory prayer (praying for persons unknown) showed a beneficial effect in patients in an intensive coronary care unit

A recent systematic review found that 57% of the randomised, placebo controlled trials of distant healing showed a positive treatment effect
What this study adds
Remote intercessory prayer said for a group of patients is associated with a shorter hospital stay and shorter duration of fever in patients with a bloodstream infection, even when the intervention is performed 4-10 years after the infection


It will be interesting to see where this Israeli study goes.
The first study mentioned is already known to be shakey, the second shows, if anything, prayers are 'answered' a little over half the time. the mr deity video on th subject of prayers sums it up pretty well.
and the third is simply post hoc rationalising of coincidence, in my opinion.
My opinion until more studies are done, obviously.
I notice the study actually 'disproving' the beneficial effects of prayer on the hospitalised isn't mentioned, either.

[pakeha]

Here's an update on that thesecond study, the 57% one:

Data Synthesis: A total of 23 trials involving 2774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Heterogeneity of the studies precluded a formal meta-analysis. Of the trials, 5 examined prayer as the distant healing intervention, 11 assessed noncontact Therapeutic Touch, and 7 examined other forms of distant healing. Of the 23 studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects, 9 showed no effect over control interventions, and 1 showed a negative effect.

from here:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3903388&postcount=3

[fls]

Every year, at Christmas, the BMJ (other journals do this as well) presents an issue 'for entertainment purposes only', in which weird, silly, or satirical research and editorials are published. The emphasis for that particular year was "paranormal".

I don't know whether or not you guys realize this and are just playing along (I have pointed out this isn't a 'real' study on several occasions here), but it's not meant to be taken seriously. However, it does present the opportunity to discover something serious about what sort of conclusions can be drawn from experiments. Because what it does show is that the act of dividing a set of people into two groups can create two groups which are different, without that difference having anything whatsoever to do with the effects of the intervention. It's a study about pattern creation, not about prayer.

Linda

[Darat]

I'm still waiting on the outcome of the double-blinded, rigorously ran experiment into praying for amputees limbs to regrow....

[Hux]

What's your favourite 'explanation' for the apparent ignoring of the amputees plight by their favourite deity?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Just my take, but wouldnt it prove more if the control group had the full surgery and everything associated and the prayer group no surgery, no medical treatment but just prayer?
Now if that shows that the second group has a better survival rate I'd be at least partially convinced.