Do prayers make a difference
It was supposed to be good news, like the kind in the Bible. After three years, $2.4 million, and 1.7 million prayers, the biggest and best study ever was supposed to show that the prayers of faraway strangers help patients recover after heart surgery. But things didn't go as ordained. Patients who knowingly received prayers developed more post-surgery complications than did patients who unknowingly received prayers—and patients who were prayed for did no better than patients who weren't prayed for. In fact, patients who received prayers without their knowledge ended up with more major complications than did patients who received no prayers at all.I think there should be more experiments of this type. Those who really do believe will simply ignore these types of findings. If anyone wants to burry their head in the sand, that's their right.
However, those whose faith is not too strong, may start to doubt, and who knows, maybe they will start to take things less literally, develop a sense of humour and perhaps even become more rational as a result. Now that has to be a good thing.
posted by amitav at 4/06/2006 12:56:00 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
For me, the best part was that $2.4 million dollars was spent on this research - that's a lot of researchers and their families fed and clothed for 3 years!.
Money will always be spent on silly projects, and this does have the important effect of providing employment. But isn't it better if it would be wasted on projects that try to answer some of humankind's oldest questions, as opposed to wasting money on projects such as the Missile Defence Shield.
"What are the p values anyways?"
Don't know what you are talking about, sis. What "p values"?
"Who the heck funds prayer research anyways?"
In this case, the research was funded mainly by the John Templeton Foundation - according to wikipedia,"The Foundation is well known for supporting through prizes the work of scientists who suggest connections between "spiritual" and "scientific" realities." So if there was pressure, it would have probably been to find a link between prayer and recovery.
I don't want more experiments of this type. Of course not. It is a "frigging waste of money". I do agree that there are more important issues which should be investigated. For instance I am still confused about vitamin C. Why can't they figure it out once and for all? What is the recommended daily dosage? Did we really once upon a time synthesise it ourselves? Does the freaking vitamin help to prevent colds or flu or perhaps reduce their severity - not really, according to:
Medical News Daily or University of Maryland Medical Center. I really wanna know, just to tell our parents that they are wrong to drink crazy amounts of water with lemon, any time they have a cold. But then if they believe it works, I might be negating the placebo affect, when I try to prove to them that they are wrong. For that matter, is there really such a thing as placebo effect? Last time I checked, the research was inconclusive.
I think I am going invite Kati to write on this blog. Do we know any other doctors? Hmm, Walteri I guess. He can add a touch of madness to this.
Anyway, my point was that there will always be some research, which we will consider frivolous waste of money. Since this will happen, I would rather it was channeled into something like this, than into a new way to kill people. Besides, it's not like the Templeton people would fund research into the Vitamin C. It's their money, if they want to create employment with it this way, why not.
"I don't quite envision scores of US churchgoers taking a copy of the article next Sunday to discuss its implications"
Well I do. I think the author of the slate article made this point. If the study showed a correlation, they would be talking about. Religious people try to reconcile their beliefs with the world they live in. That's why we have these silly ideas such as Intelligent Design. You gotta remember that religions which fail to keep up with contemporary trends, tend to lose their followers. Otherwise Church would have never accepted that the Earth is a sphere.
Besides, not all the religious people are the same. You do have a minority hardcore, and nothing upsets these guys. But the vast majority tend to be moderates who try not to think about inconsistencies. This, I believe, corrupts their faith, and so it is in Church's interest to support such studies. This logic may seem strange. But I consider faith as something that needs to be continuously tested. In other words, you examine a point of view, and chose to reject it, because of your faith.
But since I am an agnostic, perhaps I am not the best person to comment on this subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home