'No health benefit' from prayer

The world's largest study into the effects of prayer on patients undergoing heart surgery has found it appears to make no difference.

The MANTRA study, run from Duke University Medical Center in North Carolina, involved 750 patients.

Before their operations, they were randomly split into two groups, and half were prayed for by Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Muslims.

However, checks revealed they had fared no better than those not prayed for.

The results of the controversial study contradict earlier findings from the same team which suggested a drop of a quarter or more in "adverse outcomes" - including death, heart failure or heart attack.

However, that trial involved only 150 patients, and the more extensive research, completed this year, found no evidence of any benefits.

The study is the subject of a BBC "Everyman" documentary to be broadcast next week.

Prayer teams from various denominations and faiths were alerted by email to start intercessory prayer as soon as possible after the patient was enrolled on the trial.

Neither hospital staff, the patients, or their relatives had any idea which patients' were receiving prayer, to prevent any chance of the results being skewed.

After the patients had undergone an angioplasty procedure, in which a balloon is inserted into a heart artery and inflated to clear an obstruction, they were followed for six months to see how they progressed.

'Unwise test'

Many theologians say that, even if you believe in the power of intercessory prayer, such a trial is doomed to failure because it "puts God to the test" - and there are clear instructions in the Bible not to do this.

The Bishop of Durham, the Rt Rev Tom Wright, said: "Prayer is not a penny in the slot machine.

"You can't just put in a coin and get out a chocolate bar.

"This is like setting an exam for God to see if God will pass it or not."

Other experts are highly critical of the concept that the benefits of prayer might be "dose-dependent" - that is, that the benefits might increase as the number of people praying went up.

This is particularly important, as Duke University is at the centre of the US "Bible belt" - and many of the trial participants, regardless of whether they were randomized to receive prayer during the trial, would be getting it from relatives and friends - and of course themselves.

Dr Richard Sloan, from the New York Presbyterian Hospital, described the concept of a prayer "dose" as "absurd".

He said: "It requires us to abandon our understanding of the physical universe."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/...lth/3193902.stm

Published: 2003/10/15 11:23:23 GMT

© BBC MMV

==============================

Not really news to those of us who are blessed in seeing reality as what is really real.

This quote deserves an encore (in bold):

Dr Richard Sloan, from the New York Presbyterian Hospital, described the concept of a prayer "dose" as "absurd".

He said: "It requires us to abandon our understanding of the physical universe."

Right on Doc Sloan!

PMI

__________________
"...if what we're suffering is Republican success, then we might ALL hope for enough "failure" to dig ourselves out of it." -- Flint

Power to the Plaid

One major problem with the traditional Christian God is that, if He in fact ever does anything at all, it's always offstage: it takes place in hearsay, in historical fiction, in miraculous untestable things said to happen long ago and far away. Or else His actions are post-facto justifications: Pray for A, B happens, and justify it by saying that B must be in some ineffable way superior, since that's what "God" did. The simple request for some actual, replicable positive evidence has always been unanswerable.

Instead, we get rationalizations for why God never does anything. Even those dreaming up the gods knew they were on shaky ground, and had to write down the CYA about not being permitted to test God, who never passes any tests. But the distinction between an indetectable being who never does anything and the lack of any such being at all is too subtle for those not trained into the belief from infancy and/or who crave excuses for their own failures.

So this entire experiment is really silly. If it is properly controlled, it is guaranteed to demonstrate no effect whatsoever, every time. Which proves nothing at all, of course. There is one and only one argument for any gods: nobody can prove they don't exist. All we can do is observe that they don't do anything, lending a strange and probably unique meaning to the word "exist".

Seriously, can anyone imagine any Believer seeing these negative results and drawing logical conclusions? If they did, they wouldn't have been Believers in the first place.

Despite this, I have witness that for many, people who pray at critical time, reduced their level of anxiety, and therefore its effects on ones personnal health, and mind state.

Snowy Owl,

Yes, but you are talking about something entirely different. If you wander over to the nearest decent bookstore, you will find aisles of self-help books saying just what you are saying: state of mind affects health. Placebos work. Relaxation works. Doctors have cultivated bedside manners for centuries because it's observed that confidence in the doctor (in all ignorance of the medical situation) is very helpful.

And if you actually READ this article, you will notice that special care was taken to avoid all of these known effects, in an effort to isolate the magical component, if any. Neither the patient, nor anyone with whom the patient could come into contact, had any way to know who was being prayed at.

See item #1, "The Placebo Affect.

Here's another example: A blow on the top of the head can cause diabetes insipidus. Doctors know this. There is absolutely no known connection between the two, but still it is a known fact that a blow on the top of the head can cause diabetes insipidus.

I'll consider scientists' pronouncements on spiritual matters when they can adequately explain scientific matters.

__________________

In other words, until scientists know everything, they know nothing? Since you make heavy use of what scientists have learned, I guess you mean anything that even SEEMS to violate your religious doctrine will be rejected for no particular reason, but the rest is facts. Typical religious honesty at work again.

However, you will notice that there were NO "pronouncements on spiritual matters", there were instead correctly reported results of a correctly performed experiment, which unfortunately didn't produce the results you require. So you have decided to reject any experiments that don't have predetermined results in your favor? Yet MORE religious honesty at work!

Flint, I didn't say any of what you said. Please try to get your fiction straight.

__________________

Clarification for Flint's benefit:

Science deals with things that are measurable. Spirit deals with things that are not measurable. By definition, science can never explain spiritual matters.

__________________

SmartAZ:

First, let's get the facts taken care of. I quoted your exact words, and you say you didn't say that? I suggest you check your post. You wrote it. And so this wasn't a pronouncement about a spiritual matter, it was a pronoucement that no evidence could be found. YOU were the one who tried to make the case that because science can't explain something completely unrelated, you won't bother to consider this experiment. But why not?

However, I agree with you that science can never explain spiritual matters. The boundaries of science stop where the evidence stops. Where there can be no evidence, there can be no science. And THAT is why this experiment was silly. They were trying to find evidence that cannot exist, and of course they failed to find any.

Nope, as it has been so aptly demonstrated here.

Quite so!

__________________
"...if what we're suffering is Republican success, then we might ALL hope for enough "failure" to dig ourselves out of it." -- Flint

Power to the Plaid

As Flint has stated, this is a completely different issue. Biofeedback and visualization have been proven effective therapy in the treatment of many illnesses and conditions, and it appears your definition of "personal" prayer could fall into one of these general categories. The scientific study conducted by Duke University specifically targeted the effectiveness of "third-party" prayer on the test subjects. The resulting conclusion: prayer had no health benefits whatsoever on the test subjects.

__________________
"...if what we're suffering is Republican success, then we might ALL hope for enough "failure" to dig ourselves out of it." -- Flint

Power to the Plaid

Hmm. The bible says something on that topic:

__________________

SmartAZ:

Try a mental experiment. You wish to fabricate a bunch of crap and brainwash children into believing it, knowing they will pass it along, virus-fashion. People in general are both desperate and gullible enough so that the only real challenge you face is the occasional rational person who wants, like, actual evidence.

How do you handle this? How about a pre-emptive strike? Pre-label rational people who want something to back your claims as fools. Who knows, you might get away with it. In fact, as Lincoln said, you can fool some of the people all of the time -- specifically, those who want to be fooled real real real bad.

Meanwhile, there remains ZERO evidence for any of your claims. No honest person would ever claim evidence doesn't matter, and just about ALL dishonest people will. They have to.