How should I respond to this...

[Laurens]

I occasionally post on a Buddhist message board, though I do not call myself a Buddhist any longer or practice in any way - I like to hang out there sometimes as I do have a respect for the Buddhist philosophy. Anyway that's beside the point.

Recently someone posted a topic asking what prayers they should do for their father who is in hospital. I respectfully pointed out that there is no evidence that prayer works and that perhaps one could help in other ways. The response I got was a link to the following article.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/26/2585.html

I stated in a response that I feel the article does nothing to prove it was actually prayer that helped the patients and it may have easily been due to other circumstances, such as the breathing and relaxation methods taught to some of the subjects. And also pointed out that recovery from heart surgery is a relatively un-miraculous event anyway. However I would like to address the issue further as there is many people advising that she should sit chanting Pali non-sense - and to me this is not very Buddhist or compassionate advice.

 

[Nelson]

I'll admit I did not read that article word for word. I did what I usually do when I come across a claim like this, I skimmed through to look for meaningful numerical results and statistics. I found nothing of the sort. I really hope that this is a summary of a journal article somewhere. If this article is the only summary of the research described, then it is a bad joke. There is no meaningful analysis of any data, the results themselves are not presented in any sort of table.

However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT. Patients treated with bedside MIT also showed changes in self-rated emotional distress prior to catheterization and stenting.

.

Actual results? Statistical significance?

"The most statistically significant finding of our analyses so far is the relief of pre-procedural distress with the use of music, imagery and touch administered by a trained practitioner at the patient's bedside," said Suzanne Crater, ANP-C, cardiology nurse practitioner at DUMC and Durham VAMC and co-director of the MANTRA study project at the DCRI. "Whether this relief of distress translates into better outcomes will require further analysis but the implications for every bedside practitioner are of great interest."

If this is so statistically significant, you would think they wouldn't have a problem reporting some actual STATISTICS. In almost all research (even astronomy, which is what I do), you have to clarify your claims with some sort of confidence level. For example you have 20 patients that appear to be equally as sick. You separate them into two groups A and B. You give group A treatment X, and you give group B a placebo. 5 people from group A get better, only 4 people from group B get better. Is this a statistically meaningful result? Absolutely not. You need to consider what portion of people are expected to get better based on chance alone, and how large your deviations are likely to be from the mean based on your sample size.

Of course, this trial is a bit bigger, but this doesn't change the fact that they failed to report any such statistics. On top of this, we have the presence of the placebo effect which is not at all accounted for.

After the imagery script, the practitioner applied 21 healing touch hand positions, each for a period of 45 seconds.

Presumably, the claim is that you do this at some key energy points or some other sort of woo explanation, in order for it to work correctly. The control group should have someone who is not at all trained, and does the exact same thing, but at the WRONG points. This is a proper control for this sort of test. If your control group receives nothing at all, then you are only testing the strength of the placebo effect.

Overall, this could have been written by Joe Blow with fuck-all in medical training. This is not a peer reviewed journal, and there is no actual data. I'm not gonna waste time to background check the author for credentials, this is mostly the point of journals in the first place. You can read an article from a well established journal and know that this stuff checks out, because it has already made it through the refereeing process.

Edit: Typo

 

[Squawk]

As far as I'm aware there has only been one thorough methodological study of the effects of prayer on recovery. It was conducted by the Templeton foundation back when they used to do good research. They were looking for positive effects, but still conducted the study properly.

Four groups of patients.

Prayed for and knew about it
Prayed for and didn't know about it
Not prayed for and knew about it
Not prayed for and didn't know about it

There was a specialised "prayer group" setup in order to test this, I can try to dig out details, and there were thousands and thousands of subjects for the study.

Only one result had statistical significance. Those who were prayed for and knew about it did worse than everyone else in recovery. When I found that out it made my day ;-)

I'll have to look over your article later, I haven't read it for now, but prayer is a load of shite, and in light of the templeton study could even be considered a threat.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I would counter by offering this study, participated in and conducted by religious groups even, showing that prayer has zero effect, unless the patient knows they're being prayed for, in which case prayer has a negative effect.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

 

[Squawk]

I would counter by offering this study, participated in and conducted by religious groups even, showing that prayer has zero effect, unless the patient knows they're being prayed for, in which case prayer has a negative effect.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1072638.ece

That would be the study I was referring to

 

[Case]

The Lancet[/i], 366, 211-217."]
Results
748 patients were enrolled between May, 1999, and December, 2002. 737 (99%) underwent cardiac catheterisation and 563 (75%) percutaneous coronary intervention. Inhibitors of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa were used in 341 (61%) of the 563 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Baseline demographic characteristics and clinical features, interventional procedures, and baseline measures of mood, anxiety, spirituality, and quality of life were well balanced across the treatments (table 1). Questionnaires completed by the patients at enrolment showed that 613 (89%) of 688 responding were aware of prayer on their behalf outside of the protocol. Questionnaires completed before discharge showed that 186 (64%) of 292 who were not assigned prayer treatment believed that they were, whereas 98 (35%) of 278 who were assigned prayer according to the protocol believed that they were not. Complete 6-month follow-up data were obtained for 717 (96%) of the 748 patients enrolled. Six patients withdrew consent, and 25 were not available for followup. Information on the primary endpoint was missing in 15 (4%) of patients assigned MIT therapy and 16 (4%) assigned no MIT therapy, and in 11 (3%) assigned prayer versus 20 (5%) assigned no prayer. Sensitivity analyses imputing outcomes for patients with missing endpoint data did not change the interpretation of study results for any treatment-group comparisons. Of the patients with complete follow-up, the primary composite endpoint occurred overall in 263 (37%) patients; 179 (24%) had major adverse cardiovascular events, 238 (33%) were readmitted to hospital or died, and 27 (4%) died within 6 months. Frequenciesand hazard ratios for primary and prespecified secondary endpoints for the groups assigned MIT therapy and no MIT therapy are shown in table 2, and Kaplan-Meier curves of cumulative frequency for the primary composite endpoint are shown in figure 2. There were no differences between the MIT-therapy and no-MIT-therapy groups in composite primary or secondary endpoints (table 2). Self-rated distress before the percutaneous coronary intervention was significantly lowered in the MITtherapy group compared with the no-MIT-therapy group (median,84,·2 [IQR,155,·2 to,14,·0] vs,18,·9 [-60,·0 to 19,·0]; p0,·0001). 6-month mortality was lower in patients assigned MIT therapy than for those assigned no MIT therapy (table 2). Frequencies and hazard ratios for primary and prespecified secondary endpoints for the groups assigned prayer or no prayer are shown in table 2. There were no differences in any of the primary or secondary endpoints between these groups. There was no difference in the timing of events for the primary outcome (figure 2). Over the final 7 months of the study the two-tiered prayer therapy was assigned to 84 patients, with 88 assigned no protocol prayer. Hazard ratios for the primary and secondary endpoints are shown in table 3 and those for the primary composite and prespecified secondary endpoints for single-tier prayer compared with two-tier prayer, relative to the contemporaneously randomised no-prayer groups, are shown in figure 3. Tests of interaction showed no significant difference in the effects of prayer between the period before the implementation of two-tiered prayer and the period after this change.
Of the 748 patients, 192 were assigned standard care with neither intervention, 182 prayer only, 185 bedside MIT therapy only, and 189 both prayer and MIT therapy. No significant differences were found among these four treatment groups in the primary or secondary composite endpoints (table 4), and there were no significant interactions between MIT therapy and prayer for these endpoints. 6-month mortality was slightly lower in patients assigned both prayer and bedside MIT therapy than in those assigned standard care or prayer only, with hazard ratios of 0,·34 (95% CI 0,·09-1,·25; p=0,·10) and 0,·26 (95% CI 0,·07-0,·93; p=0,·04).

The portrayal of the results Mr. Krucoff offers is not justified at all (read: he's talking bullshit).

 

[JustBusiness17]

Source:

Author of Article:
Name: Armen Hareyan
General Theme: Health and Alternative Health
Specialized Theme: Interest Pieces
Blogging Stats: Author has posted 24996 articles in 76 months = ~10.82 articles per day = ~1.90 articles per hour (based on a 40 hour work week)

Except from Article:

Editor's note: Although this research suggests that prayers and healing touch had only little healing effects in patients, it all depends on factors. Is the Higher Being to whom the prayers were send the creator of the Universe? Who are the people who were asked to pray? How sincere was the prayer? When studying the matters of Divine on healing and comparing them to the high tech medicine, more aspects of Theological postulates should be taken into consideration.

Disclosure: The editor of eMaxHealth.com professes Orthodox Christianity

About eMaxHealth:

eMaxHealth.com is an independent health news organization and is owned by Hareyan Publishing LLC,

Our mission is to report daily health news and inform the public. eMaxHealth.com does not provide provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Our news comes from eMaxHealth, Hareyan Publishing LLCeditors, journalists and organizations that submit news stories.

Hareyan Publishing LLC is a privately owned, independent news organization headquartered in Hickory, NC.

eMaxHealth.com, A Hareyan Publishing LLC Company - Public News Organization

4128 2nd. St. NW
Hickory, NC 28601
Tel. 828 291-5884
Email: info (at) emaxhealth.com

Registrant:
Hareyan Publishing LLC
4128 2nd St. NW
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: EMAXHEALTH.COM
Created on: 05-Feb-04
Expires on: 05-Feb-17
Last Updated on: 05-Dec-08

Administrative Contact:
Hareyan, Armen @hotmail.com
Hareyan Publishing LLC
4128 2nd St. NW
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
United States
8282676894 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Hareyan, Armen @hotmail.com
Hareyan Publishing LLC
4128 2nd St. NW
Hickory, North Carolina 28601
United States
8282676894 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS.RACKSPACE.COM
NS2.RACKSPACE.COM

Analysis:
As a "privately owned news organization", Hareyan has a vested interest in creating an abundance of interesting articles in order to generate hits. Advertising space is sold for $15-35 CPM however unsold space is being recovered by Google Ads. In my opinion, at an average rate of 10.82 Articles/day over 6.33 years of blogging, Hareyan is committed to generating "clickable" content. I can only assume that quantity takes precedent over quality.

Additionally, the editor's disclaimer at the bottom of the article indicates an extreme bias towards belief in the supernatural. He is attempting to dismiss statistical insignificance by claiming the test was compromised with the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy. While I appreciate his honesty, a professing Christian WANTS to believe which makes the potential for "cherry picking" statistics or experiencing confirmation bias that much more likely.



Conclusion:
Assume interpretation errors and conduct independently research before trusting the content of this website.

 

[Nelson]

The portrayal of the results Mr. Krucoff offers is not justified at all (read: he's talking bullshit).

Thanks Case. Those are the sorts of statistics I was referring to. It is clear that the original authors conclude that the statistics do not at all support the claim that there is any benefit to any of the alternative therapies used. The one result that the eMaxHealth author claims is the "most" significant, is still NOT significant enough to claim a result. This seems like more than a misinterpretation. I think it is likely he deliberately avoids mentioning this fact in order to present a dishonest result.

Edit: I just noticed you are saying that the original author of the journal paper makes unjustified claims. It seems to me that he is stating none of the results are significant enough to claim that these methods work. Did you mean to say that Hareyan makes claims that are not justified, or am I misreading something here?

 

[Case]

You're welcome.

There's one more thing. Before MANTRA II, there was MANTRA I, the pilot study. Let me refer you to...
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/PrayerTherapy.htm

@ Laurens: kindly suggest that she (?) should visit her father and play him some music. As the study showed... it alleviates reported stress.

 

[JustBusiness17]

@ OP: Laurens - Did any of this help?

Edit: I just noticed you are saying that the original author of the journal paper makes unjustified claims. It seems to me that he is stating none of the results are significant enough to claim that these methods work. Did you mean to say that Hareyan makes claims that are not justified, or am I misreading something here?

Sorry, if that was directed at me. I didn't see it.

I'm not saying they're unjustified or inaccurate or anything about any of the claims in the article. I'm just saying there are an abundance of reasons to believe that Hareyan has included bias leanings or inaccurate interpretations into his writing. That's why I said the following:

Conclusion:
Assume interpretation errors and conduct independently research before trusting the content of this website.

Which is fair since prayer is considered a ritualistic activity that attempts to somehow communicate desires to a supernatural force. The most rational approach to Hareyan's "scripture" is a highly skeptical one. Without conducting independent research, it only makes sense to default on disbelief - WHICH can be said about any claim from anyone - But more-so in the case of Hareyan.

He asked for our opinions and 'source' is always the first place I look when suspicious about something. Now Laurens and anybody who searches for information about eMaxHealth will know my opinion about the best approach to analyzing Hareyan's publishings. That opinion could change if I knew more about Hareyan, but right now, it doesn't look good. Dissect it "line by line".

 

[Demojen]

ahahaha, @JustBusiness17

I was just starting to do that, going over the sources and identifiers for the site. Glad I scrolled down before I got into it.

Yeah, I posted a comment about the article being full of unsubstantiated bullshit, but I doubt the post will ever made it past moderation. See any others make it?

 

[DepricatedZero]

Did anyone else bother to read the first sentence correctly?

Distant prayer and the bedside use of music, imagery and touch (MIT therapy) did not have a significant effect upon the primary clinical outcome observed in patients undergoing certain heart procedures, researchers at Duke Clinical Research Institute (DCRI), Duke University Medical Center, the Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) and seven other leading academic medical institutions across the U.S. have found.

 

[Demojen]

Is the opening the only part of the article you bothered to read?

The researchers found no significant differences among the treatment groups in the primary composite endpoint. However, six-month mortality was lower in patients assigned bedside MIT, with the lowest absolute death rates observed in patients treated with both prayer and bedside MIT. Patients treated with bedside MIT also showed changes in self-rated emotional distress prior to catheterization and stenting.

Are you going to tell me that doesn't fly in the face of the opening paragraph?

Statistics are bullshit and this entire article is froth with religious underpinnings, despite the REAL author claiming it to be completely on the ball.

Ontop of this bias there is the fact the author is a fraud.
He did not write the article.

Published July 14, 2005
By Duke Medicine News and Communications
http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/9136

 

[Case]

DZ: I'm not sure whether you read the study design... the groups are as follows:

Prayer
Prayer + MIT
MIT
control

Demo: the article is not biased, The Lancet is a highly respected journal so the editors can usually be trusted to take care of that. Other than that, I skimmed the original article and can't detect any noteworthy bias either. Furthermore, Mr. Krucoff is listed as primary author of the article. This makes it quite likely that he did write the article. What's biased (and clearly wrong) is his media report.

 

[MRaverz]

As far as I'm aware there has only been one thorough methodological study of the effects of prayer on recovery. It was conducted by the Templeton foundation back when they used to do good research. They were looking for positive effects, but still conducted the study properly.

Four groups of patients.

Prayed for and knew about it
Prayed for and didn't know about it
Not prayed for and knew about it
Not prayed for and didn't know about it

There was a specialised "prayer group" setup in order to test this, I can try to dig out details, and there were thousands and thousands of subjects for the study.

Only one result had statistical significance. Those who were prayed for and knew about it did worse than everyone else in recovery. When I found that out it made my day ;-)

I'll have to look over your article later, I haven't read it for now, but prayer is a load of shite, and in light of the templeton study could even be considered a threat.

That study needs to include 'Not prayed for, but thought they would being prayed for' and 'Prayed for, but thought they were not being prayed for'. Methinks.

 

[lrkun]

Editor's note: Although this research suggests that prayers and healing touch had only little healing effects in patients, it all depends on factors. Is the Higher Being to whom the prayers were send the creator of the Universe? Who are the people who were asked to pray? How sincere was the prayer? When studying the matters of Divine on healing and comparing them to the high tech medicine, more aspects of Theological postulates should be taken into consideration.

I think this is a nice review by the editor of that article.

He questions the validity of the claim. You should point this out to the one who gave you this article.

On the note of being buddhist or not being one. We're all free to choose on that which we think is important or that which matters to us. Consequently it makes us conscious of what we're getting into, some of the time, because being conscious all the time is almost impossible.

 

[Case]

That wasn't feasible, Raver. Some of the people knew others were praying for them. It's hard to create a true placebo condition for this.
That aside... I think the reason why few such studies are conducted is that most people realize even without a scientific study that prayer doesn't do jack.