…and this is a 
I have no idea how this stuff gets published. I've been sent a new paper that tests the effect of prayer, and I was appalled: it's got such deep methodological problems that nothing can be concluded from it, but that doesn't stop the authors, who argue that they're seeing that Proximal Intercessory Prayer improves vision and hearing in people in Mozambique.Proximal Intercessory Prayer (PIP) is their very own term for what they do, to distinguish it from distant prayer. What is it, you may ask? Here is their protocol.
Western and Mozambican Iris and Global Awakening [two evangelical/missionary organizations that cooperated with the research] leaders and affiliates who administered PIP all used a similar protocol. They typically spent 1-15 minutes (sometimes an hour or more, circumstances permitting) administering PIP. They placed their hands on the recipient's head and some- times embraced the person in a hug, keeping their eyes open to observe results. In soft tones, they petitioned God to heal, invited the Holy Spirit's anointing, and commanded healing and the departure of any evil spirits in Jesus' name. Those who prayed then asked recipients whether they were healed. If recipients responded negatively or stated that the healing was partial, PIP was continued. If they answered in the affirmative, informal tests were conducted, such as asking recipients to repeat words or sounds (e.g. hand claps) intoned from behind or to count fingers from roughly 30 cm away. If recipients were unable or partially able to perform tasks, PIP was continued for as long as circumstances permitted.
Vision and hearing tests were carried out before and after the procedure using eye charts and an audiometer. Subjects were recruited from a self-selected population of rural Africans who were attending a charismatic/evangelical revival…that is, people who knew they would be rewarded with acclaim if they publicly demonstrated dramatic improvements in their health under the influence of a priest. This experiment did not use single-blind trials — in fact, the subjects were hammered repeatedly with the protocol until they reported that it worked for them, subjectively.
It also wasn't double-blind. Not only were the experimenters fully aware of what treatment the subjects received, but they knew that every single subject they tested had reported a positive effect. This study was wide open to experimental bias, and given that two of the authors of the study were not medically trained at all, but were instead members of schools of theology, and that all of the work was funded by the Templeton Foundation, we can guess what answer they wanted.
Most damning of all, there were no controls.
I repeat, no controls anywhere in the experiment.
No controls, experiment not done double-blind or even single-blind, a small number (24) of subjects self-selected from a suggestible population predisposed to demonstrate an effect…this study is total crap. All it would take to get their results is a tendency for people coming in for magical healing to exaggerate their afflictions, and minimize them after a few minutes of personal attention, and presto, PIP works. And that seems like an extremely likely situation to me.
Now there could be a real physiological effect: compelling attentiveness, physical stimulation, and just generally waking people up could generate an increase in blood flow to the head, which would lead to better sensory performance — I know I wake up bleary-eyed and wooly-headed until I've snapped myself awake with a little cold water and some physical activity, so we also know that sensory performance varies over time. But can we determine that from this work? No! No controls! This is completely worthless work.
What's particularly galling is that the investigators go on to suggest that maybe the suffering people in the undeveloped world could benefit from PIP.
Although it would be unwise to overgeneralize from these preliminary findings for a small number of PIP practitioners and subjects collected in far-from-ideal field conditions, future study seems warranted to assess whether PIP may be a useful adjunct to standard medical care for certain patients with auditory and/or visual impairments, especially in contexts where access to conventional treatment is limited. The implications are potentially vast given World Health Organization estimates that 278 million people, 80% of whom live in developing countries, have moderate to profound hearing loss in both ears, and 314 million people are visually impaired, 87% of whom live in developing countries, and only a tiny fraction of these populations currently receive any treatment.
No, I think those hundreds of millions of people deserve something a little more substantial than a witch-doctor dribbling oil on their heads and chanting to their Jesus juju. And no, nothing in this work can warrant further investigation.
By the way, you may wonder why they had to go to rural Mozambique to find subjects. There is no shortage of crazy preachers and gullible believers willing to be healed by magic in the US. They reveal the answer to that in an aside.
Conducting similar studies under controlled clinical conditions in North America would be desirable, yet neither Iris nor Global Awakening claims comparable results in industrialized countries (arguing that "anointing" and "faith" are lower where medical therapies are available)—see Supplemental Digital Content for our unsuccessful attempts to collect data in the US.
Ah, the incredible shrinking god — he just doesn't work where conditions are amenable to more thorough examination. I am not surprised.
I'm also not surprised that this garbage was funded by the Templeton Foundation. It could only have been supported by an organization that places scientific rigor a distant second to making excuses for faith.
Brown CG, Mory SC, Williams R, McClymond MJ (2010) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Proximal Intercessory Prayer (STEPP) on Auditory and Visual Impairments in Rural Mozambique. Southern Medical Journal, 4 August 2010.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Les Lane
|
August 4, 2010 11:51 AM
Double self deception appears to be considered an appropriate substitute for double blinding.
Posted by: stompsfrogs
|
August 4, 2010 11:53 AM
Rather than calling this an "unblinded experiment with no controls," couldn't we more succinctly call it "masturbation?"
Posted by: Tulse
|
August 4, 2010 11:54 AM
How did this make it through peer review? Is the Southern Medical Journal (based in Alabama) actually a peer-reviewed journal?
Posted by: Sister marie
|
August 4, 2010 11:55 AM
Why travel all the way to Mozambique? With that kind of power, they could simply travel to a city in the U.S. and clean out all of the cancer wards.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
August 4, 2010 11:58 AM
Now now PZ, don't let scientific rigor get in the way of a good self affirming prayer study.
Posted by: Sastra
|
August 4, 2010 11:58 AM
Wait, didn't the last winner of the Templeton Prize make a big song and dance about science and religion as two separate, mutually non-interfering, non-overlapping magisteria? Now there's a study? They didn't change their ways?
The Templeton Foundation has tried to impress itself and others by bringing in well-qualified scientists to waffle on vaguely about faith and meaning. I hope all the Respectable Believing Scientists take a good, long look at what sort of "science" Templeton funds, and represents.
This is how science and religion are reconciled. Religion produces pseudoscience, and science proceeds to kick its sorry ass to the curb.
Posted by: vanharris
|
August 4, 2010 11:58 AM
Until the patients sorry, victims, told the eejits to feck off, i guess.
The religious nutjobs really can con themselves big-time.
Posted by: alex.asolis.net
|
August 4, 2010 12:01 PM
Is the Southern Medical Journal an actual, legitimate scientific journal? Or is it more like AiG's?
Posted by: James F
|
August 4, 2010 12:02 PM
#3 Yes. It's got an impact factor of only 0.924, but it is indexed by Thomson Reuters. And yes, that's frightening.
Posted by: Q.E.D
|
August 4, 2010 12:02 PM
That's exactly what the developing world needs:
Theologians doing "medical research".
Posted by: Felicia
|
August 4, 2010 12:04 PM
Why is this so controversial?
All foundations overspend and drain their coffers.
Worldwide sales of Templeton Proximal Intercessory Prayer cloths (T-PIPS), particularly across a very needy third world, could not only easily refill the tank but in turn continue to fund those studies necessary for future replenishment. And then you can still get their articles as a bonus, like the worm in a bottle of tequila.
Posted by: Tulse
|
August 4, 2010 12:05 PM
Here's a bit more context: a search for "prayer" in the Southern Medical Journal turns up 114 separate results.
Posted by: charley
|
August 4, 2010 12:09 PM
Apparently the Southern Medical Journal is crap.
Posted by: mxh
|
August 4, 2010 12:10 PM
@#9 and #13
Yikes! Southern Medical Journal quickly made it on my list of journals to ignore.
Is there a nice list of sham journals that sound official out there? It'd be pretty useful. (Southern Medical Journal may not be a sham journal, but with this "study" they sure are acting that way).
Posted by: Britomart
|
August 4, 2010 12:17 PM
How do we nominate this for an IgNobel?
http://improbable.com/ig/
Its too late I am sure for this years party, but would be wonderful next year.
Posted by: Sajanas
|
August 4, 2010 12:20 PM
Let these people try for the Randi prize then, if they are so confident. Sheesh. They may as well hold up signs that say "Applause"
Posted by: johnlil#0a224
|
August 4, 2010 12:21 PM
Well, in the tests for vision improvement, it was at least single-blind.
Posted by: lautrec85
|
August 4, 2010 12:22 PM
This is sort of like the wedge strategy. You can criticise their books and studies all you want, pointing out flaws in their methods, describing precisely why they are doing it wrong... they will ignore you and keep on publishing stuff and getting famous and pretending that very loud noise and visibility equals scientific respect.
That from the science front, but in fact, this is even religiously bogus. You're not supposed to reach faith through evidence. Templeton wanted to reconcile science and religion, but it has end up going far away from both by embracing pseudoscience.
Posted by: PrudeHawkeye
|
August 4, 2010 12:22 PM
Anybody know how to get a hold of the actual article?
I'm starting a pseudoscience club at my school and would love to tear this study apart with my students for its methodological design, but I'd need something tangible to work with.
Posted by: Epinephrine
|
August 4, 2010 12:23 PM
So, it looks like this will be in the September issue of SMJ? Maybe we should write to them, to disabuse them of the notion that this is in any way science.
Posted by: matt.edlefsen
|
August 4, 2010 12:23 PM
I don't understand. Why are they clapping and holding up fingers if they have eye charts and an audiometer?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 4, 2010 12:23 PM
Funny the amount of cheating (no controls, no single and/or double blinding) that is required for prayer to get a positive result. Almost like they know it is bullshit, but have to show some positive results anyway.
Posted by: KennyG
|
August 4, 2010 12:25 PM
The Templeton Foundation: Conducting poorly done studies for Jesus since 1987.
Posted by: natural cynic
|
August 4, 2010 12:26 PM
we are going to try our best to do so within the confines of a pseudo-medical journal.
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
August 4, 2010 12:26 PM
Yeah, "Southern Medical Journal". Seriously.
But the cutest thing is, even they admit their results do not hold when the controls are stricter.
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
August 4, 2010 12:28 PM
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa..
haha....
credulous people should get more contempt than they deserve...
thanks PZ
Posted by: Frank b
|
August 4, 2010 12:31 PM
Mat #21, Maybe they only have one eye chart and audiometer to share, and so have to use hand methods when the eye chart and audiometer are busy.
Posted by: legistech
|
August 4, 2010 12:33 PM
How revolting. I thought Templeton was just badly misguided, not outright crazy. Guess I was wrong.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
August 4, 2010 12:37 PM
And people at faith-healing services are also convinced. I should note that most keep their glasses when their vision is healed, however, you know, just in case....
I guess the double blind studies didn't involve the belief of the people, so were flawed. Got to have faith, or nothing happens. If you do believe, something happens, namely, people believe something happens, and/or the placebo effect occurs.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/MYjVJsI4vp6rS_VcqyIpS.6Kuypk2bieew--#269ff
|
August 4, 2010 12:43 PM
I guess they're learning from their mistakes. IIRC the last time they did a test with control groups (such as they were), not only did prayer have no effect, but there was a minor negative correlation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTJESqn62u8
They're getting better at setting up studies that confirm their biases. The worst thing is, that when xians inevitably trot this study out at lectures/debates, it will be in one of those flurries of random fallacies, that each take a while to dismantle.
Sorry about the yahoomess
-Drew
Posted by: Mr.Nerdz
|
August 4, 2010 12:44 PM
I understand it clearly now. What the study does is demonstrate that it requires not only non single blind, double blind and controlless experiments with low sample sizes to say that prayer does nothing for other people, they also need it to be done in a country where everyone believes and that there's not much else that can even works effectively!
Posted by: Susan
|
August 4, 2010 12:48 PM
...motivating "improvement" so that those annoying foreigners will just leave you alone and let you sleep.
Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death
|
August 4, 2010 12:51 PM
So they use the objective measurements to prove that the victims (sorry, the subjects in a relgio-medical study) have a problem and then use a completely subjective measure to prove that whispering magic words to an imaginary skydaddy works?
Science. You is doing is wrong. Again.
Posted by: gussnarp
|
August 4, 2010 12:58 PM
Wait, I'm confused, don't they know you can't heal people without knocking them over with your jacket?
Posted by: mikerattlesnake
|
August 4, 2010 12:59 PM
Was there any condition for the ceasing of prayer? It seems to me that their method was "do it until it works", which is a terrible way to assess effectiveness.
"I'm gonna give you chiropractic adjustments until you say it worked and then we'll assess whether it worked or not based on your subjective data."
Posted by: KaneHau
|
August 4, 2010 12:59 PM
#2 wrote... "Rather than calling this an "unblinded experiment with no controls," couldn't we more succinctly call it "masturbation?"
Doesn't masturbation lead to blindness? :)
(or at least hairy palms?)
Posted by: secularshawshank
|
August 4, 2010 1:11 PM
Wow. Talk about flawed science.
I'm still waiting for the study in which people pray for things that would not happen anyway. Sick people often recover, sometimes even miraculously so. It happens. When are these ass-clowns going to perform a study in which everyone gathers around an amputee and prays that she/he grows a new arm? According to this study, if they performed PIP that might happen, right?
Come on.
Posted by: Andrew Hall
|
August 4, 2010 1:15 PM
@ #2 and #36
I believe the appropriate term, rather than masturbation, is circle jerking (more than 1 person involved).
http://laughinginpurgatory.blogspot.com/2010/08/burn-koran-day.html
Posted by: Ewan R
|
August 4, 2010 1:16 PM
This is why these people can so easily dismiss evolution etc - they believe that this is how you go about doing science, that being the case ALL scientific conclusions can be discounted.
Posted by: palefury
|
August 4, 2010 1:25 PM
I personally prefer the work of the Fred Hollows Foundation where for a $25 donation you can restore sight to someone in a third world country with cataracts. At least they are actually doing something to restore sight.
Posted by: Screechy_Monkey
|
August 4, 2010 1:26 PM
vanharris@7: [PIP continued] "Until the patients sorry, victims, told the eejits to feck off, i guess."
Yes, at which point they were chastised for being angry rude militant atheists who did not respect the faith and good-wishes of the believers.
Posted by: Syzygy
|
August 4, 2010 1:29 PM
So just to be clear, if you said they were full of shit, they would keep hugging you, and if you said they'd worked the joyous wonders of god, they would leave you alone?
I believe the precedent was established in Rock v. Hardplace.
Posted by: wasd
|
August 4, 2010 1:37 PM
No, I think those hundreds of millions of people deserve something a little more substantial than a witch-doctor dribbling oil on their heads and chanting to their Jesus juju.Dont joke about “witchcraft” in Africa.
In 2008 the British Channel 4 investigate journalism program dispatches documented how in Congo and Nigeria kids are routinely branded as “witches” and blamed for everything from the death of elderly relatives to failed harvests. These kids are ostracised, abandoned, often horrifically tortured and sometimes murdered. I just watched the recent episode on backstreet African churches in the UK and how, in exchange for donations and other favours, pastors in the UK perform “exorcisms” on kids accused of being “witches”. It was basically a constant stream 10 months worth of horrififying hidden camera footage of witch hunts in the UK.
I literally had not had breakfast and I am absolutely sure I would have literally puked my guts out if I had.
People in the UK can watch the episode in medium quality on the Channel 4 website, the rest of us will have to do with a high quality pirate copy (bittorrent) that plays any time you want on almost any player.
This stuff makes jesus camp look sane. Fuck the motherfuckers.
Posted by: AreUNorml
|
August 4, 2010 1:37 PM
if one of those bible thumping idiots gave me an hour long hug while chanting to an invisible man...well we'd never get nearly that far along.
Posted by: Gregory Greenwood
|
August 4, 2010 1:46 PM
News Flash:- Fundies lie!
In other news, dog bites human...
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
August 4, 2010 1:50 PM
Torture. They will keep pouring oil on your head, whispering in your ear, and touching you until you say, "Okay! I've had enough! It works. Please, dear God, make this freaking idiot leave me alone!" Hell, in that situation, I'd probably tell the missionary that the treatment was working. In the circumstances it would seem like a small white lie to say that one felt/experienced some improvement. The placebo effect alone, plus attention from a fellow human would have minor effects.
It would be interesting to see if there was also peer pressure. Were multiple victims treated in an area where they could all see each other?
Posted by: kameronr
|
August 4, 2010 2:03 PM
If PIP stood for "Pissing In your Pants", it would do the same amount of good. Maybe we should get some people and do an experiment with no controls to prove it!
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
August 4, 2010 2:12 PM
Hold it, hold it...how do they know it was Shaitan/Iblis performing a sham healing to deceive the righteous from Islam and into the pagan trinitarian religion of Christianity?
Or that it wasn't the FSM touching people with his noodly appendage?
Or that this isn't Aescalupius preparing to make a big comeback and usher in a new age of Neo-Hellenic paganism?
Or that it wasn't placebo from being touched by a human who cares about you?
Posted by: wasd
|
August 4, 2010 2:15 PM
If you just keep “hugging” aka holding and “testing” and “hugging” and “testing” people for up to more than an hour until they finally start saying they are okay, then how could you expect anything but a 100% success rate? Does anyone have the results? What happened to the people who were not “cured”, were they all really cases of people where circumstances no longer permitted continued “treatment”?
One dose a day until you are cured, results to be counted only after the regimen has been completed. This must be the “are we there yet” school of statistics.
Posted by: Paul
|
August 4, 2010 2:17 PM
I'd love to hear Ayala's view on this study.
Posted by: DN King
|
August 4, 2010 2:34 PM
We can also go to a rural 3rd world nation and dress in funny hats, colorful robes, burn incense, and read from The God Delusion and get similar results.
It seems both God and Richard have equal powers of faith healing. But when stack against modern medicine's FUCKING HEART TRANSPLANT, I think God's "maybe kinda less blurry vision" is weak and pathetic at best.
Posted by: NCParker
|
August 4, 2010 2:34 PM
"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
"Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor."
And then all hell broke loose. Patrick Michaels (Cato Institute): "There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors. They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.'"
So many parallels...
I say, screw the SMJ until they shape up, and who cares how these religious scientists-sin-scientific-method react. Seriously, who reviewed this paper?
Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier
|
August 4, 2010 2:34 PM
How the fuck did this make it through?
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI
|
August 4, 2010 2:36 PM
Yikes! I have cited studied published in the SMJ in the past.
I'm going to have to go back through all my old lectures and weed their stuff out now -- just in case I ever have to resurrect something.
Wow. Just. Wow.
Posted by: VAiora
|
August 4, 2010 2:37 PM
This is idiotic. If things didn't go positive for them, PIP would be continued, until results were made.
This... wow the amount of fail coming from this.
Posted by: Canadian
|
August 4, 2010 2:49 PM
nothing fails like Templeton.
Posted by: Rincewind'smuse
|
August 4, 2010 2:58 PM
The power of christ compels you!(within a specified radius).
Posted by: InfraredEyes
|
August 4, 2010 3:07 PM
"...and I'm going to go right on praying until your eyesight improves! Now, stop wriggling and sit still!"
"Oh...well yes, now that you mention it, I think I can see a bit better."
Posted by: Ewan R
|
August 4, 2010 3:12 PM
Level + d12'
Posted by: Leon
|
August 4, 2010 3:22 PM
Oh, it was blind, all right. Just in a different sense of the word.Posted by: Leon
|
August 4, 2010 3:26 PM
Actually, the way I read that was that PIP was less effective in places where actual real medical treatment was available.Posted by: KG
|
August 4, 2010 3:32 PM
- palefurySightsavers is another similar charity, to which I make a small but regular donation, in memory of my parents, both of whom would have been blind in their later years without modern medicine. Actually helping poor people to keep or regain their sight - admirable. Pretending to do so, as here - sick.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
August 4, 2010 3:38 PM
Did they even attempt to consider the questions I was asking above? This kind of reminds me of Pascal's Wager, where the only two choices are Jesus and !Jesus.
How DO they know it wasn't another god or gods, a demon of some sort bent on deceiving them, placebo effect, or some unknown but purely naturalistic "biofield"-type thing?
Posted by: Dae
|
August 4, 2010 3:40 PM
The sad thing is, this is precisely the kind of research religious dipshits will point to and say "Look! We can do SCIENCE too! But our work is not accepted in the Ivory Tower, because they hate us!"
No, your pathetic excuse for papers are not accepted in the scientific community because the experiment design is fucking terrible and openly caters to your bias.
Posted by: Susan Silberstein
|
August 4, 2010 3:49 PM
My 35yo sister-in-law had a massive stroke. Her Christian family prayed, probably at home and church, but certainly in my presence at her bedside in the ICU. Surprisingly, she died. Then they prayed at the funeral, insisting that their deity had some kind of plan that required her death. No one suggested *he* couldn't have had another plan, one that promoted her life.
My husband, who was raised with that background, says that such thinking gives them comfort and I know he is right, but it is so infuriating and it is hard to keep silent in the face of such nonsense. Sometimes I think of myself as an anthropologist, observing an alien culture.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 4, 2010 4:39 PM
Oh well, what a surprise! Not.
Posted by: Joffan
|
August 4, 2010 4:44 PM
It all goes to show that you can't beat preying on the sick.
Posted by: redrabbitslife
|
August 4, 2010 5:07 PM
The worst bit of all this, IMHO, is that these bible thumpers waste resources which could be better spent installing latrines and training nurses.
It's stealing.
The church (in general including but not limited to the Catholics, the Anglicans, the United Church, and the Presbyterians) has done vast amounts of damage in Africa. They have instilled a sense of inferiority in terms of both race and culture (you know the two creation myths in the bible, one of which has god saying "let there be animals and people" and the other having people specially created by god's hands: they divide them up- black people were created like animals and white people were touched by god's hands). They have sanctioned beggary, and have even told villagers it is their place to be the poor beggars.
They live high on the hog, and cannot be bothered to better the lot of the people they "came to help." Rather, they build churches to praise god. They send bibles instead of food or money.
Sorry, it's a pet hate of mine. It was the thing that made me not merely agnostic, but a spitting angry militant anti-theist.
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 4, 2010 5:16 PM
Joffan:
In a nutshell. +1.
Posted by: kc5tty
|
August 4, 2010 5:22 PM
I was turned into a newt....... and I prayed and got better.
(...apologies to Monty Python)
I have met at least 6 people who were "cured" of cancer and gave up their medication and therapy to die in less than a year. 2 were in extreme pain. I cried when they died because I lost friends. I tried to talk them into at least going with medicine and prayer but they were convinced.
I do not have any patience for people who say they can cure anything with prayer and in fact tell them that they are liars, cheats and murderers. If I caught them in the road I would run them over.
sorry, I hate those slugs
steve
Posted by: dactylifera
|
August 4, 2010 5:47 PM
I think at least two control groups are in order, a non prayer group and a prayer to FSM or Cuthulu group.
Also, we should translate the prayers into Klingon which I believe is not widely spoken in Mozambique. It still won't work, but the You-tube videos should be worth a look.
Posted by: banjaloupe
|
August 4, 2010 9:32 PM
Hi! I had to comment here since I actually saw a presentation from CG Brown about this research last spring, at a meeting of the IU Secular Alliance (http://saiu.org/)! I was really interested in reading this paper since their argument (basically, in favor of prayer where medicine is unavailable) was very radical, and generated a lot of discussion at that meeting.
I just wanted to mention that Brown never said, at least in the talk, that what was happening was effective prayer. In fact, she put forward a number of hypotheses (such as self-handicapping, motivated by a desire to prove one has been "healed", or something akin to what PZ mentioned aka heightened attentiveness and stimulation) which she said were, of course, much more plausible than the "Holy Spirit" having anything to do with what happened. Also she mentioned a number of methodological difficulties/impossibilities: they couldn't do pre-/post-tests since subjects didn't have addresses and couldn't be tracked down or reliably identified; the vision/hearing test itself was done right next to an evangelical summit that, based on the video she showed, was basically a giant rave; since it was in a crowd there could be interactions between the subject and others around them that would confound the results; etc etc etc. I assume she addressed these issues in the paper but, since I haven't read it, I don't know.
In any case, judging from her presentation last spring, Brown seemed to be legit and not at all fishing for a certain result (aka effective prayer). I can't wait to read the study and see whether or not the methodological challenges nullified the results, as PZ said!
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
|
August 5, 2010 12:01 AM
I've always wanted to go to a faith healing session, just so I could jump up and yell, very loudly, "Halle-Fucking-Lujah! It's a God Damned Miracle! I can fucking SEE again! Thank you, Jesus H Christ!".
But I'm a strange person.
Posted by: Richard Eis
|
August 5, 2010 7:59 AM
I can just imagine the scene...
"Ok, ok, i'll say yes to anything, just stop HUGGING me!!"
Christians...they think a double blind study means the patient needs glasses for both eyes.
Posted by: Laplace's Demon
|
August 6, 2010 1:07 AM
"Blogging on Peer-Reviewed Research"? Really?
Posted by: John Morales
|
August 6, 2010 1:11 AM
Laplace's, yes, really.
Why do you find this confusing?
Do you think this is not blogging, or do you think it's not about peer-reviewed research?
Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe
|
August 6, 2010 1:14 AM
LaPlace:
Yes. What's your problem? Might as well spit it out.
Posted by: etienne
|
August 6, 2010 5:33 AM
Their last chance journal is Annals of Improbable Research (http://improbable.com/). They could even run for IgNobel prize, who knows?
But humor is not part of their package, is it?
Posted by: godfree
|
August 6, 2010 11:15 PM
What did anyone expect from Templeton - facts ? They should have, in the interest of scientific accuracy, set up a control group. Half of them pray to a stone.
Posted by: michaelgrayer
|
August 8, 2010 10:19 AM
As a religious person myself may I cross party lines (so to speak) and add my full support to PZ Myers analysis of the paper.
This really is unethical bullshit of the highest order.
When I see "studies" of this nature I die a little inside. This is another example of a subset of religious folk making complete tits of themselves and dragging anyone else who thinks of themselves as "religious" in by association. It hurts.
The study is clearly unethical, biased to produce a "positive" result, and should never have made it past peer review. It has quite rightly been lambasted here and elsewhere. Author Cindy Gunther Brown may well be a renowned expert in the field of the history of religion and its cultural impacts across America (I don't know), but her forays into medical research are demonstrably naive and leave a lot to be desired.
I also notice that one of the study's authors is a registered chiropractor. Explains the emphasis on the role of "human touch".
I cannot begin to describe how cross this study makes me. Ugh.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
August 8, 2010 4:38 PM
One thing wrong there: D. Chir. refers to a chirurgeon, not a chiropractor. The guy is a surgeon.
Posted by: btonscholar
|
August 9, 2010 8:57 AM
"authors of the study were not medically trained at all, but were instead members of schools of theology". Actually, the study is led by a scholar of religious studies. I emphasize this because IU's department is not theology--it is public university, and the department is supposed to be engaged in secular study of religion. However, this sort of 'research' is not typical of religion scholars at a place like Indiana, and there is definitely a line crossed here, in a thinly veiled attempt to "prove" the efficacy of prayer by a scholar who has a history of doing this, has clear personal (faith) commitments to the forms of theology she claims to be investigating, and has received a lot of $ to generate these kinds of results.
Posted by: KG
|
August 9, 2010 9:07 AM
banjaloupe,
Come off it. If you want to do worthwhile research, you don't pick out a context in which that is clearly impossible.
Posted by: michaelgrayer
|
August 9, 2010 9:39 AM
@PZ Myers
My mistake. Thank you for correcting me. My apologies to her.
I still stand by the rest of what I said.
Posted by: daniel.lavine83
|
August 10, 2010 2:44 PM
The best way to address methodological issues like these in a scientific paper would be not to submit the paper for publication.
In fact, that's the only good way. Publishing the paper in the first place suggests that the results, positive or negative, are somehow valid. But with such a clearly flawed methodology, neither a positive nor negative result would be reliable. This paper doesn't contribute to science because it can't possibly make a good argument either for or against intercessory prayer. All it does is muddy the water.
Posted by: banjaloupe
|
August 22, 2010 2:15 PM
Good thing PZ linked back to this recently since I forgot to come back to check for responses :-/
KG: As far as I understood it, the point of researching there was because it was the only context where they'd find an effect. Sure, some places are harder to do research in than others, and some are impossible, but I was guessing they had some idea about how to do research in the former. Of course what btonscholar said is pretty worrying; I had no idea that Brown had ulterior motives. At the SAIU talk she seemed alright, but I haven't had any other contact with her...
daniel.lavine83: I guess I assumed that if the paper had been published, then that meant that their methodology was at least reasonably sound. I know very little about medical journals, is the Southern Medical Journal unreliable as far as peer-review goes?