Just in Time for All Rock Prayer
Scrappleface strikes again.
Update: My apologies to those who thought this may have been a factual story. Scrappleface.com is a satirical news website, and its hilarity is the only thing on my blog remotely resembling a regular feature. It is, however, based off a real story, begging the question of how many times over scientists could have actually cured every disease if they didn't waste resources on such studies.
Prayer Study: Humans Fail to Manipulate God
by Scott Ott
(2006-03-31) — A team of scientists today ended a 10-year study on the so-called “power of prayer” by concluding that God cannot be manipulated by humans, not even by scientists with a $2.4 million research grant.
The scientists also noted that their work was “sabotaged by religious zealots” secretly praying for study subjects who were supposed to receive no prayer.
The allegations came at a news conference where researchers announced their findings that intercessory prayer by two Roman Catholic religious communities and a group from the Missouri-based Unity church failed to produce better results for patients recovering from heart surgery.
“As it turns out, God was not impressed by our academic credentials, our substantial funding base, and our rigorous study protocols,” said lead researcher Dr. Herbert Benson, a cardiologist and director of the Mind/Body Medical Institute near Boston. “I get the feeling we just spent 10 years looking through the wrong end of the telescope.”
While patients who knew they were the targets of the study’s intercessory prayer team actually had more post-operative complications, Dr. Benson admitted he failed to prevent friends and relatives from praying for the “no prayer” control group.
“It really burns me up that we worked so hard, only to be undermined by an anonymous army of intellectual weaklings on their knees,” he said.
Dr. Benson said he would now seek $10 million in grants to explore whether fire can be called down from heaven to kindle a pile of wood. The control group’s wood will be drenched in water to prevent combustion.
Comments
i've never heard of this site, how legit is this story?
(yes, i feel very vulnerable right now, like I just said "really?" after a sarcastic joke)
Posted by: nate | April 1, 2006 06:12 PM
Actually, at least the gist of this story may be true, in that some study said prayer is not as effective as we'd like to think. My paper ran a national wire story on this the other day. Here is the story from CNN.com about prayer allegedly having no effect on heart patients: http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/03/30/prayer.study.ap/index.html
Posted by: Rob | April 1, 2006 06:26 PM
Here's the link to the actual journal article.
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870305006496/abstract
Posted by: Tony | April 2, 2006 01:49 AM
i read the article tony posted...
i wonder how they defined "intercessory prayer"?
Posted by: nate | April 2, 2006 03:23 PM
Here is the article's description of the intervention that they were testing.
The first name, first initial of last name, and an anonymous site code for patients assigned to groups 1 and 3 (those to receive intercessory prayer) were placed on the prayer list for 14 consecutive days, starting the night before each patient's scheduled surgery. The same daily updated list was faxed to each of 3 intercessory prayer groups every weekday throughout the study,[20] and the list was posted in a central location not later than 7:15 pm EST each evening, with intercessory prayer beginning by midnight for patients on the list. The intercessors agreed to add the phrase “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications” to their usual prayers.
Intercessors from 3 Christian groups (2 Catholic groups [St Paul's Monastery, St Paul, MN; Community of Teresian Carmelites, Worcester, MA) and 1 Protestant group [Silent Unity, Lee's Summit, MO]) provided study prayer throughout the trial. We were unable to locate other Christian, Jewish, or non-Christian groups that could receive the daily prayer list required for this multiyear study.
Posted by: Tony | April 2, 2006 04:10 PM
For some reason your blog keeps rejecting citation number 20.
It refers to a previous article discussing appropriate study design for intercessory prayer. Here is a link to the abstract. (Just like the article link I posted previously, you need a subscription to read the entire article. ISU provides access to anyone with a computer on campus. Alternatively, you can just go to the Library and see this in print.)
http://www.ahjonline.com/article/PIIS0002870302604806/abstract
Posted by: Tony | April 2, 2006 04:19 PM
STEP is a multicenter, controlled trial of 1802 patients in 6 US hospitals, randomized to 1 of 3 groups. Two groups were informed that they may or may not receive 14 consecutive days of additional IP starting the night before coronary artery bypass graft surgery; Group 1 received IP, Group 2 did not. A third group (Group 3) was informed that they would receive additional IP and did so. Three mainstream religious sites provided daily IP for patients assigned to receive IP. At each hospital, research nurses blinded to patient group assignment reviewed medical records to determine whether complications occurred, on the basis of the Society for Thoracic Surgeons definitions. A blinded nurse auditor from the Coordinating Center reviewed every study patient"s data against the medical record before release of study forms.
Posted by: Tony | April 2, 2006 04:22 PM
this is gonna be funny after tony's appropriate, informative posts...
but that survey was pretty weak sauce.
hey guys, lets test God, see if we can use him in medicine. we'll add him to the textbooks if this works! if it doesn't work, i guess we always knew there is no god. we're so smart.
/sarcasm
Posted by: nate | April 2, 2006 07:13 PM
See, the funny thing is that the scrappleface article makes MORE sense than the actual study's data interpretation.
Posted by: matt | April 3, 2006 11:05 AM