• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

News Flash! Prayer doesn't work....Duh

Prayer does to work! Prayer works as long as you don't ask for anything or expect anything to happen!
 
I just read the same at CNN. I rushed here to post a link, but I see I was beaten to the punch, again.
 
A. The Xians are just going to argue that god doesn't like meddling and deliberately ignored those prayers precisely because they were part of a contrived study.

B. They will then go on to argue that the researchers are in fact responsible for the complications, lack of recovery and even death of patients, because they interfered in the natural man-to-god communication as per point A.
 
I'm surprised about the lack of a control group. All the groups knew they were being prayed for. Why wasn't there a group who wasn't being prayed for, and weren't told that they might be?

I know prayer doesn't work, but this little thing is bothering me.
 
Critics said the question of God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study.
Click to expand...
Who wants to bet that the "critics" would be singing a different tune if the study had turned out in their favor?
 
tkingdoll said:
A. The Xians are just going to argue that god doesn't like meddling and deliberately ignored those prayers precisely because they were part of a contrived study.

B. They will then go on to argue that the researchers are in fact responsible for the complications, lack of recovery and even death of patients, because they interfered in the natural man-to-god communication as per point A.
Click to expand...

First, have you read the study? If so, I would be interested in the explanation for the finding that "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." According to the Opening Post's link, the researchers "said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them."

Second, why do you assume this study is the final word on this subject? Other studies have arrived at different conclusions. For a brief summary of the controversy, see -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html

Third, why are you so focused on "The Xians"? Do you think that they are the only group who will challenge this study?
 
Rodney said:
First, have you read the study? If so, I would be interested in the explanation for the finding that "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." According to the Opening Post's link, the researchers "said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them."
Click to expand...
I got a guess. Stress! Man, it's hard enough to get better, now if you fail you're messing up someone's worldview?
 
BlackCat said:
I'm surprised about the lack of a control group. All the groups knew they were being prayed for. Why wasn't there a group who wasn't being prayed for, and weren't told that they might be?

I know prayer doesn't work, but this little thing is bothering me.
Click to expand...

Because it is unethical to put people in a study without telling them. All the participants had to agree to be part of the study.

"We like you to be part of a study where you won't recieve any treatment, and we aren't going to tell you what the treatment would be if we had put you in the treatment group."

Not the best thing to say to a heart patient.
 
Maybe I am being paranoid about this..... but I am amazed at how fast this story was bumped from CNN's front page to their Health page.

Especially amazing because the story that bumped it from the home page is a WEEK old dieting story.
 
I dropped CNN a line inquiring how they decided that a 6 day old diet story was bigger news than a couple hour old story about Prayer and Medicine.

I don't expect a response. I would really love to hear how that was worked out.
 
ChristineR said:
Because it is unethical to put people in a study without telling them. All the participants had to agree to be part of the study.

"We like you to be part of a study where you won't recieve any treatment, and we aren't going to tell you what the treatment would be if we had put you in the treatment group."

Not the best thing to say to a heart patient.
Click to expand...

Haven't read the actual study yet, so take this with a grain of salt. I wonder if you could have an attention control group. So, the consent would be something like: "there is a 25% chance that someone will definitely be praying for a good recovery for you plus you will receive standard care; a 25% chance that some one might be praying for you plus you will receive standard care and a 25% chance that someone will definitely be wishing you a good recovery and you will receive standard care and a 25% chance that you will not be assigned to one of these conditions but will receive only standard care"
 
Rodney said:
First, have you read the study? If so, I would be interested in the explanation for the finding that "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." According to the Opening Post's link, the researchers "said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them."

Second, why do you assume this study is the final word on this subject? Other studies have arrived at different conclusions. For a brief summary of the controversy, see -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html

Third, why are you so focused on "The Xians"? Do you think that they are the only group who will challenge this study?
Click to expand...

I focused on Xians because that is the predominant religion in the country of the study and my own country by a very large majority.

Where did I assume this study is the final word? I was making a prediction about what the response by Xians will be to this study (whether I'm right or not remains to be seen).

If you want the explanation for the statistics, you will have to read the study yourself. However, I think it's unlikely that you will find one because there probably isn't an explanation for why prayed-for people developed a complication. My post was a guess as to the sort of explanation Xians, who generally believe in the power of prayer, might come up with to refute the findings and turn public opinion against the study.
 
Rodney said:
First, have you read the study? If so, I would be interested in the explanation for the finding that "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." According to the Opening Post's link, the researchers "said they had no explanation for the higher complication rate in patients who knew they were being prayed for, in comparison to patients who only knew it was possible prayers were being said for them."
Click to expand...
According to the New York Times report of the researchers' press conference they suggest that there may be a nocebo effect involved, or that the higher incidence of complications in that group may have not been significant:
In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain. The authors left open the possibility that this was a chance finding. But they said that being aware of the strangers' prayers also may have caused some of the patients a kind of performance anxiety.

"It may have made them uncertain, wondering am I so sick they had to call in their prayer team?" Dr. Bethea said.
Click to expand...
 
A few observations:

  • I am amazed this study cost $2.4 million. Cardiac surgeons are already required to collect all surgical outcome data - all the prayer study investigators had to do was decide in advance on the groups and get consent, then get people praying (for which they presumably charged nothing). So there seems to be no capital expenditure required - just someone to collate data and match it to the groupings. I could have employed a research nurse to coordinate this study for a one-off fee of about $1000 (or say $6000 for 6 nurses -one in each centre).
  • The 3 prayer groups were Christians, - so TKingdoll's comments about the Xtians' possible reaction to the study was quite valid.
  • This study fails to provide evidence that prayer helps recovery from CABG surgery. To be fair and objective, this says nothing about its ability to influence other aspects of health.
  • An explanation as to why the group who knew they were being prayed for fared slightly worse could be that these patients and their relatives responded to the knowledge that they were in a prayer group by reducing the amount of additional praying they did for themselves/their loved ones (e.g: "I don't need to pray for Joe - he has loads of other folk praying for him.."). This might have effectively reduced the total prayer quantity in this group, making them fare less well.
 
Deetee said:
An explanation as to why the group who knew they were being prayed for fared slightly worse could be that these patients and their relatives responded to the knowledge that they were in a prayer group by reducing the amount of additional praying they did for themselves/their loved ones (e.g: "I don't need to pray for Joe - he has loads of other folk praying for him.."). This might have effectively reduced the total prayer quantity in this group, making them fare less well.
Click to expand...
You may not win many friends around here with that explanation. ;) However, "[t]he authors said one possible limitation to their study was that those doing the special praying had no connection or acquaintance with the subjects of their prayer, which would not usually be the norm. '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."
See -- http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsA..._RTRUKOC_0_US-PRAYER.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=
 
From this article:

One of the authors of the findings, Reverend Dean Marek, director of chaplain services at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, added: "Our study was never intended to address the existence of God or the presence or absence of intelligent design in the universe."
Click to expand...
I wonder if Rev. Marek would have added such a disclaimer if their study had showed positive results for the prayed-for group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom