Freethought & Rationalism Archive

caravelair · 06-05-2003, 01:50 PM

i've been debating again... i'm just wondering if anyone has heard of this claim about a correllation between prayer and the wellbeing of medical patients. since my fields of study are astrophysics and math, i know nothing about medicine, so i am not well prepared to refute such a claim. therefore, i would like the opinions of those more knowledgeable than myself in these matters. any help? thanks.

Principia · 06-05-2003, 02:06 PM

One should actually read the original articles... When a site makes claims like:

Quote:

Multivariate analysis of all the parameters measured demonstrated that the outcomes of the two groups were even more statistically significant (p < 0.0001). In science, the standard level of significance is when a "p value" is less than 0.05. A value of 0.01 means that the likelihood the result is because of chance is one in 100. A p value of 0.0001 indicates that in only one study out of 10,000 is the result likely to be due to chance. Table 2 from the study is reproduced below. The remarkable thing which one notices is that nearly every parameter measured is affected by prayer, although individually many categories do not reach the level of statistical significance due to sample size. However, multivariate analysis, which compares all parameters together produces a level of significance seldom reached in any scientific study (p < 0.0001).

My statistics-abuse alarm goes off.

I have actually read the 3rd case previously. Here's a link to a site where I responded to flaws in the study, and the interesting implications of the study.

Excerpts:

Quote:

Very recently a `seemingly impeccable paper proving absurd claims' was published in a serious and (hitherto?) respected journal in the field of reproductive medicine: Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? (Cha et al., 2001) In a well-designed trial they demonstrated a statistically significant positive effect of intercessory prayer on the outcome of in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. In the `prayer-group' 50% of the patients became pregnant and in the control group 26%. The groups were reasonably comparable, although there was a tendency towards younger patients in the prayer group and there was a substantial number of patients excluded for unclear reasons. This paper, that drew a lot of attention in the lay press, was written by the chairman of the Cha Hospital in Seoul, Dr Cha, by an attorney with a diploma in parapsychology, Dr Wirth (whose firm Wirth and Wirth Esq. could not be traced by journalists in Pennsylvania) and Dr Lobo, a professor in obstetrics who is an expert on matters of the menopause. Dr Cha calls himself an `associate research scientist' and was the first president of the Korean Pochon Cha University, the first in Korea to incorporate alternative medicine in the curriculum. He organised a big symposium on alternative medicine in 1999. His hospital, that also accommodates an IVF centre, financed the trial. Daniel P.Wirth is neither theologian nor IVF specialist. He earlier published papers on Therapeutic Touch, qigongtherapy and spiritual healing. In 1993 he wrote `The effect of noncontact therapeutic touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds' in Subtle Energies, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1�20. When the philosopher Dale Beyerstein tried to learn more about the design of that trial he first experienced many difficulties in locating Wirth and afterwards was threatened by Wirth with legal steps if he insisted in his endeavour to challenge Wirth's data. The New Yorker Dr Lobo stated to be very surprised by the findings himself but refers further questions to Wirth. Fraud is difficult to extract from an apparently impeccable paper, but everyone is invited to draw one's own conclusions about the trustworthiness of the authors. We do not believe anything of the story and are very much opposed to publishing this kind of absurdity in serious journals.

"Alternative treatments in reproductive medicine: much ado about nothing - 'The fact that millions of people do not master arithmetic does not prove that two times two is anything else than four': W.F. Hermans" Renckens CNM, Human Reproduction, Vol. 17, No. 3, 528-533, March 2002

Quote:

Despite positive results, the researchers still have not shown any such benefit, says observer Harold Koenig, associate professor of psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, and a leading researcher on spirituality and health. Koenig says that like other double-blind studies of intercessory prayer�studies where neither the researchers nor the participants know who is being prayed for�the study has severe scientific and theological flaws. �It�s about sending one�s thoughts over space and time,� Koenig says: that�s not prayer.
[...]
Spirituality and heath expert Koenig, however, says the study isn�t really about prayer at all. All double-blind studies must evaluate a phenomenon with a currently understood scientific explanation, he says. Because the study does not provide scientific evidence that God exists, it�s a better measure of the effectiveness of extrasensory perception than of prayer, Koenig says.

�[The study] is not at all supportive of that fact that this is the result of an act of God, a personal God in particular.� says Koenig, co-author of the Handbook of Religion and Health (Oxford University Press, 2001).

Because all study participants were trying to become pregnant, most were probably praying for help and had friends and family members praying for them as well, Koenig says. Therefore, the study actually measures the effect of more prayer versus less prayer, and it�s theologically troubling to suggest that God would intercede after hearing ten prayers as opposed to just five, he says.

�The God that we believe in the Western world is not the kind of God that counts prayers,� Koenig says. �He�s the God who risks the entire flock�s well-being to rescue one lone sheep. So the single prayer is very powerful in terms of our understanding of God, at least in the [Christian] Western world.�

http://www.science-spirit.org/articl...article_id=284

Principia · 06-05-2003, 02:09 PM

I should point out however, that there may in fact be a good medical reason for the patient to pray (as opposed to being the receiver of anonymous prayers). However, these latter studies are a far cry from the ones above that purport to demonstrate the existence of Gods.

RBH · 06-05-2003, 02:20 PM

I'm not going to take the time to analyze the linked article. However, several years ago a physician acquaintance of mine who was interested in that kind of thing gave me a paper (which I can no longer find) that purported to show that in a double-blind study, AIDs patients who were prayed for by strangers had better outcomes in a followup than a control group for whom no (authorized) prayers were performed.

Looking at the paper, it was clear that although the double-blinding and other procedures were sound from an experimental design point of view, the experimenters' randomization of patients into experimental and control had screwed them. On pre-tests, the patients in the prayer treatment group differed significantly from those in the control group. Most notably, those in the prayer group were more likely to take an active interest in their (orthodox and unorthodox) treatment options, more likely to try new potential treatments, and were generally more involved in their own treatment process. They also tended (though not statistically signficantly) to be in better general health than the control group. (Small N: 10 per group, IIRC. Maybe 12, so a few bad random assignments can screw the stats.)

On the outcome measures the prayed-for patients differed from the control group mostly on measures one would expect to be associated with taking an active interest in one's own treatment (e.g., self-rating of progress), as well as on several of the medical measures.

Given the pre-existing differences between the control and experimental groups, I told the physician that one could conclude nothing useful about prayer from the study. He disagreed vehemently, since he wanted to believe prayer worked. Oh, well.

RBH

Dr.GH · 06-05-2003, 02:22 PM

I had originally responded to the BMJ article, (Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial Leonard Leibovici, BMJ 2001; 323: 1450-1451) which BMJ published 5 March 2002. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/323/7327/1450#20325

"I won't extend much beyond the many comments already published in BMJ.

I used to teach statistics to medical students and faculty when I was on the faculty of the Medical College of Georgia. I really had to pound it into their heads that even at p<0.05 you are going to be WRONG 5 out of 100 times.

There is a rule of thumb (I think it could be formalized if anyone wants to make the effort)that I (think I) made up: In a dichotomous randomization trial, your main results must exceed the delta (i.e. measured change, or differences) obtained from a nonselected naturally dichotomous variable in the raw data or subpopulation.

When I looked at the data presented in tables 1, and 2 of Leonard Leibovici�s paper on prayer in BMJ, I see that his randomization yielded a sex ratio and some locus of infection differences with distribution spreads equal to or larger than his principle results.

So, applying my "rule of thumb," to conclude that Leibovici�s prayer result is "good" we are also forced to conclude that the "focus of prayer," by implication God, is particularly focused on male urinary tract infections. I doubt that this is the case. Rather, I believe that male urinary tract infections are perhaps easier to treat resulting in lower mortality, and shorter hospital stays. Or even more likely, the experiment proves nothing at all. Even the hospital stay data are weak on other grounds."

EDITED TO ADD

Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot Krucoff et al American Heart Journal, November 2001, Vol. 142, No. 5:760-767

From the abstract:

" No outcomes differences were significant; however, index hospitalization data consistently suggested a therapeutic benefit with noetic therapy. "

Sorry, but "No" means "No."

GunnerJ · 06-05-2003, 05:13 PM

Off to Science and Skepticism.

sakrilege · 06-06-2003, 04:21 AM

Has anyone ever done a study of hospitals, many of which are religiously associated? It would seem to me that if prayer did work, religious hospitals would have consistently better outcomes than secular hospitals. In my area, the two best hospitals are secular.

Nialler · 06-06-2003, 07:46 AM

I wonder how they manage the double blind studies.

My mother prays for the sick - all sick people - every night. Do they have a means to intercept and divert her prayers away from the unfortunates that are to be sacrificed for the purpose of making their point?

Wyz_sub10 · 06-06-2003, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sakrilege
Has anyone ever done a study of hospitals, many of which are religiously associated? It would seem to me that if prayer did work, religious hospitals would have consistently better outcomes than secular hospitals. In my area, the two best hospitals are secular.

I can say, from direct experience, that some factors that appear to indicate quicker recovery - i.e. length of stay, condition grade, etc., are motivated far more by financial and operational factors than by treatment.

I can also say, from direct experience, that discharge results do not vary between Catholic and secular hospitals. (Cannot comment on other religious hospitals).

Philosoft · 06-06-2003, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nialler
I wonder how they manage the double blind studies.

My mother prays for the sick - all sick people - every night. Do they have a means to intercept and divert her prayers away from the unfortunates that are to be sacrificed for the purpose of making their point?

Bingo. "Prayer" is an uncontrollable variable for this exact reason. Thus, any and all experimental designs are utterly worthless for observing supernatural activity.

06-05-2003, 01:50 PM	#1
caravelair Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: toronto Posts: 420	medical prayer i've been debating again... i'm just wondering if anyone has heard of this claim about a correllation between prayer and the wellbeing of medical patients. since my fields of study are astrophysics and math, i know nothing about medicine, so i am not well prepared to refute such a claim. therefore, i would like the opinions of those more knowledgeable than myself in these matters. any help? thanks.

06-05-2003, 05:13 PM	#6
GunnerJ Banned Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: a place where i can list whatever location i want Posts: 4,871	To S&S Off to Science and Skepticism.

06-06-2003, 07:46 AM	#8
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	Prayer on prescription I wonder how they manage the double blind studies. My mother prays for the sick - all sick people - every night. Do they have a means to intercept and divert her prayers away from the unfortunates that are to be sacrificed for the purpose of making their point?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-05-2003, 02:09 PM	#3
Principia Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: anywhere Posts: 1,976	I should point out however, that there may in fact be a good medical reason for the patient to pray (as opposed to being the receiver of anonymous prayers). However, these latter studies are a far cry from the ones above that purport to demonstrate the existence of Gods.

06-05-2003, 02:20 PM	#4
RBH Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 15,407	I'm not going to take the time to analyze the linked article. However, several years ago a physician acquaintance of mine who was interested in that kind of thing gave me a paper (which I can no longer find) that purported to show that in a double-blind study, AIDs patients who were prayed for by strangers had better outcomes in a followup than a control group for whom no (authorized) prayers were performed. Looking at the paper, it was clear that although the double-blinding and other procedures were sound from an experimental design point of view, the experimenters' randomization of patients into experimental and control had screwed them. On pre-tests, the patients in the prayer treatment group differed significantly from those in the control group. Most notably, those in the prayer group were more likely to take an active interest in their (orthodox and unorthodox) treatment options, more likely to try new potential treatments, and were generally more involved in their own treatment process. They also tended (though not statistically signficantly) to be in better general health than the control group. (Small N: 10 per group, IIRC. Maybe 12, so a few bad random assignments can screw the stats.) On the outcome measures the prayed-for patients differed from the control group mostly on measures one would expect to be associated with taking an active interest in one's own treatment (e.g., self-rating of progress), as well as on several of the medical measures. Given the pre-existing differences between the control and experimental groups, I told the physician that one could conclude nothing useful about prayer from the study. He disagreed vehemently, since he wanted to believe prayer worked. Oh, well. RBH

06-05-2003, 02:22 PM	#5
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	I had originally responded to the BMJ article, (Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial Leonard Leibovici, BMJ 2001; 323: 1450-1451) which BMJ published 5 March 2002. http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/323/7327/1450#20325 "I won't extend much beyond the many comments already published in BMJ. I used to teach statistics to medical students and faculty when I was on the faculty of the Medical College of Georgia. I really had to pound it into their heads that even at p<0.05 you are going to be WRONG 5 out of 100 times. There is a rule of thumb (I think it could be formalized if anyone wants to make the effort)that I (think I) made up: In a dichotomous randomization trial, your main results must exceed the delta (i.e. measured change, or differences) obtained from a nonselected naturally dichotomous variable in the raw data or subpopulation. When I looked at the data presented in tables 1, and 2 of Leonard Leibovici�s paper on prayer in BMJ, I see that his randomization yielded a sex ratio and some locus of infection differences with distribution spreads equal to or larger than his principle results. So, applying my "rule of thumb," to conclude that Leibovici�s prayer result is "good" we are also forced to conclude that the "focus of prayer," by implication God, is particularly focused on male urinary tract infections. I doubt that this is the case. Rather, I believe that male urinary tract infections are perhaps easier to treat resulting in lower mortality, and shorter hospital stays. Or even more likely, the experiment proves nothing at all. Even the hospital stay data are weak on other grounds." EDITED TO ADD Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot Krucoff et al American Heart Journal, November 2001, Vol. 142, No. 5:760-767 From the abstract: " No outcomes differences were significant; however, index hospitalization data consistently suggested a therapeutic benefit with noetic therapy. " Sorry, but "No" means "No."

06-06-2003, 04:21 AM	#7
sakrilege Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Cleveland, OH, USA Folding@Home Godless Team Posts: 6,211	Has anyone ever done a study of hospitals, many of which are religiously associated? It would seem to me that if prayer did work, religious hospitals would have consistently better outcomes than secular hospitals. In my area, the two best hospitals are secular.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.