AGNOSTIC?

one

Any comments?

About the message, the messenger..

i will read again, have no comment so far.

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/1728.92943

GinnyTosken

Nov. 6, 2001 -- Here's more evidence that -- in medicine, as in all of life -- prayer seems to work in mysterious ways.
In one recent study, women at an in vitro fertilization clinic had higher pregnancy rates when total strangers were praying for them. Another study finds that people undergoing risky cardiovascular surgery have fewer complications when they are the focus of prayer groups.

This is intriguing. I also found this interesting:

Seven prayer groups of varying denominations around the world -- Buddhists, Catholics, Moravians, Jews, fundamentalist Christians, Baptists, and the Unity School of Christianity -- prayed for specific patients during their procedures.

The researchers are careful to state that evidence is not conclusive:

"Although it's not statistical proof, it's not certainty, it is suggestive -- to the point that we've already begun a phase II trial."

Herbal medicines were once considered magical; perhaps the same is true with prayer. Focused attention may have power. Belief in a specific concept of god does not appear to matter.

I weigh these findings with an article I ready by John Shelby Spong:

In 1981 my wife Joan received a cancer diagnosis that was determined in all probability to be fatal. Because we were a well-known and publicly identified family (I was Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, New Jersey), the news became public knowledge almost immediately. resources of our people and our friends were quickly mobilized. Prayer groups throughout the diocese and even in ecumenical settings added my wife to their list of special intentions. Her name was spoken regularly during the prayers of the people in public worship in almost all of our churches. Those actions communicated concern, caring, and love to both of us, and we received that caring with deep appreciation. Remission did appear to have been achieved, and Joan lived for six and a half years from diagnosis to death.

This was beyond anything the doctors had led us to believe was possible. As this realization of a prolonged remission began to dawn, the people who were most concerned and whose prayers were the most intense began to take credit for her longevity. “Our prayers are working,” they claimed. “God is using our prayers to keep this malevolent disease at bay.” Perhaps there was present still that ancient but unspoken assumption that this sickness was the work of the devil and that this evil work was being thwarted by the power of God loosed through the prayers of God’s people.
Despite my gratitude for the embracing love that these people demonstrated, both for me and for my wife, I could not help but be troubled at their explanations. Suppose, I queried to myself alone, that a sanitation worker in Newark, probably the city with the lowest per capita income in the United States, has a wife who had received the same diagnosis. Because he is not a high-profile person, well connected to a large network of people, socially prominent, or covered by the press, the sickness of his wife never comes to public attention. Suppose he is not a religiously oriented person and thus prayer groups and individual petitions in hundreds of churches are not offered on his wife’s behalf.
Would that affect the course of her sickness? Would she live less time from diagnosis to death, endure more obvious pain, or face a more difficult dying? If so, would that not be to attribute to God not only a capricious nature, but also a value system shaped by human importance and the worldly standards of social elitism? Would I be interested in worshipping a God who would treat my wife differently because we had had opportunities in life that the sanitation worker had not had? Do I want to attribute to the deity a behavior pattern based on human status?
from http://www.noetic.org/Ions/publications/51_spong.htm

I am interested to see further research.

Ginny

I saw one of the doctors involved in this study when he appeared on Good Morning America. He admitted that after numerous other studies this is the first one that favored prayer. IMO if you keep trying hard enough you will find the answer you are looking for.

Another thing is in this article it mentions the chances doubled, this is not accurate. If I remember correctly he even explained that though it appeared to double, due to the number crunches, this was not the case. Anyway, from the sound of it he was not convinced himself this was a fair and accurate study, thus Phase 2. If you want to really find out, get the American Medical Journal, and read the actual study yourself.

BTW, I was told by several doctors that I could never have any more children. I even had an ovary removed last year. I highly doubt anyone was praying for me to get preggers, but here I am pregnant with no explanation. If I find out that there was indeed someone praying for me, does this mean that the prayer is the reason I am pregnant? There is no way to conclusively say yes, or no.

Though this study may be used by religious leaders and other christians to advocate prayer. They really should include the other numerous failed studies that were conducted.
wendy

Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins

larc

Mommy,

The reason you are pregnant it that is was an immaculate conception, and Jesus is about to make his second coming. he he he !

Yerusalyim

Agnostic? I'm not sure!

HA!

I also have mixed feelings about ambiguity.

YERUSALYIM
"Vanity! It's my favorite sin!"
[Al Pacino as Satan, in "DEVIL'S ADVOCATE"]

mommy

Larc,
So the rules for the second coming have changed? The mother doesn't have to be a virgin? haha
wendy

Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins

YERU2

MOMMY,

Kinda like the Florida vote fraud attempted by Gore and Company, keep counting til ya get the results you like.

JanH

It's called publication bias. Contrary to what journalists and other dimwits seems to think (apologies to non-dimwit journalists), scientific studies do not deal with "proof" but with statistical probability. A study can for example conclude that it's 90% or 95% probability that a certain outcome is not due to a random fluctuation, but to a specific effect (e.g. prayer for the sick).

Of course, if you conduct a small, inexpensive study, which will not have a high confidence level, you will only publish it if you get an interesting outcome. In this case, if prayer doesn't work, that is not interesting. If it does work, it is -- as we have seen -- very interesting and the "news" will be grabbed by news outlets, particularly religious ones. Thus, if 100 such studies are done, and 10 of them show that prayer works, those 10 may well be the only one published, and it's definately certain they will be the only ones getting any serious press. And, it's precisely what we should expect if prayer does not work.

Theists should not embrace these results, though: If there is only a slight improvement in the health of prayed-for patients, this runs contrary to the idea that an omnipotent God listens to prayer. Rather, if true, it would suggest some weak healing force that can at best make people a little bit better.

- Jan
--
"Doctor how can you diagnose someone with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and then act like I had some choice about barging in here right now?" -- As Good As It Gets

one

stilll have not re-read the article in reference, i nothing of value to say yet.

1.- Mommy,
"get the American Medical Journal, and read the actual study yourself"
on the net? url?

2.- "failed studies that were conducted."
be specific

3.- G
you quoted a guy who said: "well connected to a large network of people, "
you don't have to be rich to be "connected" it is up to the individual. If I dont have friends is most likely my fault, but not due to lack of $ neccesarily.

4.- jan,
publication bias?
anyway see number 2 above

mommy

One,
1-I don't know if it is on the net. I will check later and see if it is. If you read the actual study, not a person's opinion of the study, you will have a better understanding of what criteria was required. There is usually a list of sponsors as well, and this may give you an idea of why a study was swayed a certain way.

I know in the medical field, I have read alot of studies on a variety of subjects. More often than not, the person publishing the study is usually wanting to push their own agenda. Such as drug companies, they will conduct a variety of different studies but only the ones that promote their product are the most well known.

2- I was answering your original question in regards to the messenger. I saw on of the Dr's interviewed, and he admitted to previous studies, that he was involved in. As Jan pointed out, these studies are usually not published, in medical or scientific journals anyway. I highly doubt you will be able to find out how many "fails" there were before a jewel was found.

Of course you are talking to a woman who will not take a medication unless it has been on the market for 5+ years. I just happen to know that many things are let to slide when money is a factor. Oh yeah BTW, money is always a factor
wendy

Blind faith can justify anything.~Richard Dawkins

AGNOSTIC?

Share this