Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

[Spartan]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

 

[charlie sc]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

It’s funny how important and revered researchers get when they confirm a theory.

Do you have a link for this peer reviewed study?

 

[Nakosis]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

By what percent? 1%? Less? The percentage I think is important. The results may or may not be impressive based on this. Were any studies done which found the opposite to be true?

Lots of things to be tested, checked out, verified before anyone starts to get excited.

 

[charlie sc]

By what percent? 1%? Less? The percentage I think is important. The results may or may not be impressive based on this. Were any studies done which found the opposite to be true?

Lots of things to be tested, checked out, verified before anyone starts to get excited.

Lol it’s a peer reviewed study that’s not peer reviewed

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Lol it’s a peer reviewed study that’s not peer reviewed

You know google is at your fingertips

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know google is at your fingertips

You mean like this peer reviewed article that says it has no effect if the patient has no knowledge of it, and has a negative effect if the patient knows that he is going to have people praying for him or her:

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Science also confirms we can do a funky dance and chant "oggy woogy boggy boo!" and expect the same general results.

 

[charlie sc]

You know google is at your fingertips

There’s a peer review study saying that this study is a scam. Go look for it. You have google.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

You mean like this peer reviewed article that says it has no effect if the patient has no knowledge of it, and has a negative effect if the patient knows that he is going to have people praying for him or her:

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

Wow, the miracles of modern information technology. You can find studies supporting whatever claim or subject that tickles your fancy. I found two peer-reviewed studies on post-modern pre-Lady Gaga music theory yesterday

 

[The Reverend Bob]

There’s a peer review study saying that this study is a scam. Go look for it. You have google.

I use DuckDuckGo

 

[David T]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

Lee Strobel=Richard Dawkins

PLEASE!!!!! HELP!!!!! THE PLACE IS ABSURD I NEED A SONG!!!

Ok now i feel better!!!

 

[sayak83]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

Actually

Science has found no actual effect of intercessory prayer on recovery.

Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health. - PubMed - NCBI

OBJECTIVES:
To review the effects of intercessory prayer as an additional intervention for people with health problems already receiving routine health care.

SEARCH STRATEGY:
We systematically searched ten relevant databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE (June 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included any randomised trial comparing personal, focused, committed and organised intercessory prayer with those interceding holding some belief that they are praying to God or a god versus any other intervention. This prayer could be offered on behalf of anyone with health problems.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
We extracted data independently and analysed it on an intention to treat basis, where possible. We calculated, for binary data, the fixed-effect relative risk (RR), their 95% confidence intervals (CI), and the number needed to treat or harm (NNT or NNH).

MAIN RESULTS:
Ten studies are included in this updated review (7646 patients). For the comparison of intercessory prayer plus standard care versus standard care alone, overall there was no clear effect of intercessory prayer on death, with the effect not reaching statistical significance and data being heterogeneous (6 RCTs, n=6784, random-effects RR 0.77 CI 0.51 to 1.16, I(2) 83%). For general clinical state there was also no significant difference between groups (5 RCTs, n=2705, RR intermediate or bad outcome 0.98 CI 0.86 to 1.11). Four studies found no effect for re-admission to Coronary Care Unit (4 RCTs, n=2644, RR 1.00 CI 0.77 to 1.30).Two other trials found intercessory prayer had no effect on re-hospitalisation (2 RCTs, n=1155, RR 0.93 CI 0.71 to 1.22).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
These findings are equivocal and, although some of the results of individual studies suggest a positive effect of intercessory prayer,the majority do not and the evidence does not support a recommendation either in favour or against the use of intercessory prayer. We are not convinced that further trials of this intervention should be undertaken and would prefer to see any resources available for such a trial used to investigate other questions in health care.

 

[sayak83]

Wow, the miracles of modern information technology. You can find studies supporting whatever claim or subject that tickles your fancy. I found two peer-reviewed studies on post-modern pre-Lady Gaga music theory yesterday

That would be humanities papers...not science.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

From the book, "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel.

Dr. Candy Gunther Brown, who earned her doctorate degree at Harvard University, is a professor of religious studies at Indiana University. She has a neutral outlook on religion, having said, “I do not assume the existence or nonexistence of a deity or other suprahuman forces.”

Brown cites two scientific, peer-reviewed studies that confirmed the efficacy of prayer on patients. She noted, “One of the first publicized studies was by Dr. Randolph Byrd, published in 1988, in the peer-reviewed Southern Medical Journal. It was a prospective, randomized, double-blinded, controlled study of four hundred subjects.” The results: “Patients in the prayer group had less congestive heart failure, fewer cardiac arrests, fewer episodes of pneumonia, were less often intubated and ventilated, and needed less diuretic and antibiotic therapy.” The editor of the Journal noted that the study had been peer-reviewed and was judged to be a properly designed and executed scientific investigation.

THEN, a decade or so later, a REPLICATION STUDY by Dr. William S. Harris and colleagues was published in the “Archives of Internal medicine.” Dr. Brown noted of this study, “This was a ‘gold standard’ study of the effects of intercessory prayer on almost a thousand consecutively admitted coronary patients. Half received prayer, the other half didn’t. And again, the group that received prayer had better outcomes than the control group. These studies affirmed that the recipients of prayer had better outcomes than those who didn’t receive prayer.” - "The Case for Miracles," by Lee Strobel, pages 123-128

Discussion -

Would love a link....

Would love to see the numbers...you know, prayer keeps 1or 2 percent of people in better shape than those without. Would then love to see why it's only 1 or 2 percent and not 97 or 98% --- and then, of course, a discussion about why such a disparity exists.

 

[The Reverend Bob]

That would be humanities papers...not science.

Not the way I read it

 

[charlie sc]

I use DuckDuckGo

You’re not very loyal to DuckDuckGo if you’re asking me to use Google. Duck must suck then. Get with the times.

 

[sayak83]

Not the way I read it

Link please

 

[The Reverend Bob]

Link please

Lady Gaga science is not for the faint hearted

 

[sayak83]

Lady Gaga science is not for the faint hearted

So you actually don't have the links. Just making stuff up then....gotcha

 

[siti]

Science also confirms we can do a funky dance and chant "oggy woogy boggy boo!" and expect the same general results.

I imagine that the folks who are members of the oggy woogy boggy boo chanters and those for whom well-meaning friends oggy woogy boggy boo on their behalf with their approval derive some benefit from knowing that their friends are 'rooting for them' (except for the Australians who would be mildly disturbed at the thought of their friends rooting for them), those who are not members and have others oggy woogy boggy booing on their behalf without their approval are probably irritated by it and derive a negative effect and those who couldn't give a flying fu...er...oggy woogy...about it and don't know that someone is boggy booing (or rooting) for them are entirely unaffected...not sure that we really need a peer-reviewed study to figure that out - but I'm guessing that's how the results would pan out if we had one - if we haven't already.