6 August 2008 at 12:05:15 PM
.. with the question of whether praying for (or over) people is scientifically efficacious. You can read the full details of the double blind experiment in the book or from this scientific website. From p 87
Prayers were delivered by the congregation of three churches, one in Minnesota, one in Massachusetts, and one inf Missouri, all distant from the three hospitals. The praying individuals, as explained, were given onlyt he first name and initial letter of the surname of each patient for whom they were to pray. It is good experimental practice to standardize as far as possible and they were all, accordingly, told to include in their prayers the phrase "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications".
Here's from the article at Live Science.
NEW YORK (AP)—In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.
Researchers emphasized that their work can't address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf. The study can only look for an effect from prayers offered as part of the research, they said.
They also 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.
Critics said the question of God's reaction to prayers simply can't be explored by scientific study.
From David Myers
In the intervening nine years, while we awaited the results from this unprecedented mother of all prayer experiments, other prayer experiments surfaced:
A 1997 experiment on “Intercessory Prayer in the Treatment of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence” found no measurable effect of intercessory prayer.
A 1998 experiment with arthritis patients reported that no significant effect from distant prayer was found.
A 1999 study of 990 coronary care patients—who were unaware of the study—reported about 10 percent fewer complications for the half who received prayers “for a speedy recovery with no complications.” But there was no difference in specific major complications such as cardiac arrest, hypertension and pneumonia, with the median hospital stay the same 4.0 days for both groups.
A 2001 Mayo Clinic study of 799 coronary care patients offered a simple result: “As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes,” the study said.
A 2005 Duke University study of 848 coronary patients found no significant difference in clinical outcomes between those prayed for and those not.
Amid these negative results, one stunning result challenged my prediction. “Prayer works,” said a headline in The New York Times magazine after a 2001 Journal of Reproductive Medicine article reported that prayed-for women undergoing in vitro fertilization experienced a 50 percent pregnancy rate—double the 26 percent rate among those not receiving experimental intercessory prayers. When suspicions about the study emerged, one of the study’s authors pleaded guilty to criminal business fraud and was sentenced to prison. The article’s Columbia University co-author removed his name from the “study,” with which it turned out he had no direct involvement.
Climaxing this string of negative or discredited results comes what may be the coup de grace for intercessory prayer experiments: intercessory prayer in the STEP experiment had no effect on recovery from bypass surgery. If these had been clinical tests of a new drug, the pharmaceutical industry would surely, at this point, say “enough.”
Comment from eskeptic.
Tags: prayer experiment science STEP
Latest Blog Post by salon -Sid Miller Having a Bad Day about Feral Hogs- Kaput Company Pulls Out (April 25 2017)
More Posts You Might Enjoy
JP Prayers in Courtroom (Texas) Freedom from Religion Foundation Files Suit against Judge Wayne Mack
Religious News and Notes from the Distaff Side - 5/14/2016
Putting a religious tone into what ought to be secular, inclusive activities
Are Sectarian Prayers by Students at Graduation Coercive?
You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot
Or you can login!
New poster comments are moderated,
meaning they won't show up until approved... or not. Be
patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You
want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your
post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest
comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or
govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not
necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting
Click Here for Main Page
Sid Miller Having a Bad Day about Feral Hogs- Kaput Company Pulls Out (April 25 2017)
On Somervell County Court's Case Against Lonnie Walsh (April 24, 2017)
Ruminations of the Easily Amused for 4/25/2017
Trump's Hundred Days-What Has He Done? Not Much
Yet ANOTHER Court Ruling against Texas Lege Gerrymandering and Bigotry (April 2017)
Somervell County County-District Courtroom has some cool new A/V screens
More Blog Headlines