Prayer does not help heart patients

http://dukemednews.d...cle.php?id=9136

"Results of First Multicenter Trial of Intercessory Prayer, Healing Touch in Heart Patients" which was conducted by the Duke University Medical Center on 700 patients. It found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. Researchers emphasized their work does not address whether God exists or answers prayers made on another's behalf, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

Edited by liveforever22, 04 April 2006 - 12:46 AM.

I'm so surprised. [sfty]

It really is amazing that respectable research universities continue to waste their funding trying to validate such obvious rubbish ...goes to show how culturally retarded beliefs continue to impede progress -- even in the ivory towers of academia.

This from last year.. same story.

I would venture to say that given the popularity of the belief in the general population that prayer actually helps others, it is a wonderful subject of investigation. Also note that 'touch' therapy helped extend life which is interesting in the light of recent studies that demonstrate that 'loneliness' seems to increase the possibility of 'phenoptosis' of the individual. It seems that, like cells, when we're connected to each other in a meaningful way, (and I don't think being unknowingly prayed for qualifies), we receive the 'signals' to survive, and when we are disconnected from our fellows, we weaken, and even seem to actively implode.

http://www.eurekaler...l-dpd071305.php

---

Public release date: 14-Jul-2005
Contact: Joe Santangelo
j.santangelo@elsevier.com
1-212-633-3810
Lancet
Distant prayer does not improve clinical outcome for patients undergoing coronary procedures

Praying for patients undergoing heart procedures off-site or giving them bedside therapy involving music, imagery, and touch (MIT) does not measurably improve their clinical outcome, suggests a study published in this week's issue of THE LANCET. However, the authors note that patients receiving MIT therapy did have a lower mortality rate at 6 months.

Noetic interventions, such as energy healing, homeopathy, and therapeutic prayer, which do not use a tangible drug or medical device, are used extensively in the general population but robust studies on their effectiveness are lacking.

In MANTRA II, Mitchell Krucoff (Duke University Medical Center, NC, USA) and colleagues recruited over 700 patients undergoing elective catheterisation and percutaneous coronary intervention from nine centres in the USA. 371 patients were assigned to having an off-site prayer group pray for them and 377 had no prayer group. Prayer groups included Christian, Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist groups. In addition, half of the patients were also assigned to MIT therapy and half to no MIT therapy. MIT involved teaching the patients relaxed breathing techniques and playing them easy listening, classical, or country music during their procedure. The investigators found that neither therapy alone or combined showed any measurable treatment effect on major adverse cardiovascular events, hospital readmission and/or death. However, patients receiving MIT therapy did have less emotional distress prior to their procedures and a slightly lower 6-month mortality when compared with those not receiving the therapy.

Dr Krucoff concludes: "If we want to understand the role of human capacities and resources in the midst of our most advanced medical technologies, we have to do good science. With no notion of the actual mechanisms involved in ancient healing practices such as prayer or touch or music, structured outcomes research allows us to collect data that we can learn from in many ways. Although the primary endpoints in this study showed no definitive treatment effects, secondary analyses can be useful for hypothesis generation to guide future trials." (Quote by e-mail; does not appear in published paper)

In an accompanying editorial The Lancet comments: "Do the results of the MANTRA II study rule out the use of noetic therapies in modern scientific medicine? Such a conclusion would be premature. The contribution that hope and belief make to a personal understanding of illness cannot be dismissed so lightly. They are proper subjects for science, even while transcending its known bounds."

###

Contact: Dr Mitchell Krucoff MD FACC FCCP, Duke University Medical Center
Clinical Research, 508 Fulton Street, Room A3006, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
T) +1 919 286 6860 kruco001@mc.duke.edu

Medical Center News Office T) 919 684 4148/919 660 1301

Public release date: 14-Jul-2005
Contact: Joe Santangelo
j.santangelo@elsevier.com
1-212-633-3810
Lancet
Distant prayer does not improve clinical outcome for patients undergoing coronary procedures

July 14, 2005, the tenth anniversary of my baptism... To think, I had to wait ten years for this news... If only I had known! [sad] All those wasted years! [cry]

Why God!? Why? [angry] Whyyyyyyyyy...

[tung] [lol]

[quote]culturally retarded beliefs
I personally hope you prove the existence of hell [lol]

And I personally hope that one day you acquire a basic understanding of html (and a sardonic wit that actually adds up). [thumb]

I'm so surprised.  [sfty]

It really is amazing that respectable research universities continue to waste their funding trying to validate such obvious rubbish ...goes to show how culturally retarded beliefs continue to impede progress -- even in the ivory towers of academia.

No the universities take whatever funding they get. It is the National Center for Complementary and Aternative Medicine (NCCAM) with it's yearly federally funded 100+ million budget that keeps pouring money away. As I have said, it kills me to think that same 100 million/year say, in the hands of Aubrey de Grey could deliver us to the brink of "war on death" within 10 years.

Write your representative.

http://www.quackwatc...pics/nccam.html

Mea culpa, Opales. You are absolutely right. Funding is doled out from "on high", so I guess you can't blame the universities for whoring themselves. [lol]

As much as I hate religion, I will concede that the stress levels could be reduced by those actually praying, as they sincerely believe that there is a despot who listens to their pleas.

And I agree that it is money much better spent on more productive and less redundant research. Like uploading the net to my brain in real time. [lol]

As much as I hate religion, I will concede that the stress levels could be reduced by those actually praying, as they sincerely believe that there is a despot who listens to their pleas.

And I agree that it is money much better spent on more productive and less redundant research. Like uploading the net to my brain in real time. [lol]

No I agree that it is not totally out of question that praying could slightly relieve stress and be somewhat helpful (probably not much). However, note that on this study the tested hypothesis was that DISTANT praying might help, which is just, well, incredibly stupid.

Results of First Multicenter Trial of Intercessory Prayer, Healing Touch in Heart Patients

The prayer portion of the randomization was double-blinded, meaning that patients and their care team did not know which patients were receiving intercessory prayer.

Unfuckingbelieveable. I do have to admit that it bothers me a little bit respectable research universities submit to conducting such crap. Could not all this be outsourced to Oral Robert's?

Why is it so bad, opales? Maybe I am missing something, but wouldn't it have to be a double blind study? If the person knew that they were the one being prayed for it might have a "placebo effect", or let them think they are going to do better, in turn making them do better (the mind can do some pretty amazing things). That is why most studies are double blind, anyway, maybe I am missing something?

No I meant it's unbelievable that they honestly thought the distant prayer could have some sort of an effect and thus conduct a study involving 180 patients. That study cost probably, I don't know, 100000 dollars?

The double-blind quote was just to point out it was actually about distant (intercessory) prayer and not some bedside ritual or the person themselves praying (like karomesis thought), which might have a slight placebo-like effect.

Aah, gotcha! [thumb]

I whole heartedly agree the money could have spent in a better way, but if this study convinces a few people, then I suppose it wasn't a total waste.

The funny thing is, I doubt this has changed the mind of a single person. If you believe in the power of prayer, you'll find a reason to disbelieve this study (such as God not wanting to confirm his presense, since that would prevent people from using faith), and if you think prayer is bunk, the study proves nothing you didn't already know.

Even if you believe in the power of prayer, you'd be daft to have expected a positive outcome. If God wanted to prove his existence, he wouldn't do so through some lame scientific study.

Now if you think prayer works, not due to God, but due to some positive psychic energy or whatever, then I suppose you make up a third category that could have been hoping this study would pan out. I feel kinda sorry for people in this third category, but I suppose they're the only ones who could have reasonably expected a positive outcome, and hence they're the only ones who could reasonably fund this sort of crap.

If God wanted to prove his existence, he wouldn't do so through some lame scientific study.

Hmm, this brings up an interesting philosophical question (at least in my mind). If you were to 1)assume that God existed, and 2) assume that God does not want to reveal himself's/herself's/itself's existence through a study, then man can effectively control God, and force him/her/it to effectively "hide his hand".

Also, if you take it a step further and were to do some statistical analyses on things that happen to Christians vs non-christians, or religious vs non-religious, and find out that every time God "miraculously" does something for a Christian (cures a disease, etc.), he must also do the same for a random heathen, otherwise statistical evidence would reveal his/her/its influence.

In other words, any study of God would, in theory, make it as so there was no God in the first place because God would not want to reveal himself/herself/itself.

For Christians, the bible has built-in defences against this kind of thing: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God (Matthew 4:7, according to bible-kjv), so you're sunk either way - if God doesn't exist then prayer has no effect (except maybe the placebo effect). If he/she/it does exist he'll/she'll/it'll hide his/her/its hand so that you can't make him/her/it do stuff...


...or perhaps I am just overanalyzing, which is often the case.

Even if you believe in the power of prayer, you'd be daft to have expected a positive outcome. If God wanted to prove his existence, he wouldn't do so through some lame scientific study.

What God did, I'm sure, was affect the randomization process. And then He put all the people who needed prayer to survive into the "prayer" group. Through careful balancing of people who didn't need prayer in the non-prayer group, God was able to balance the figures, and appear that He did not intervene.

You really think that a 'randomization' is more powerful than God? Pshhh

At least, that's how I would rationalize things. The weak link in this study is assuming that the randomization was true, when it doesn't have to be. Heck, the entire hypothesis is that God intervenes, and so there's no value in claiming the study was randomized.

And don't forget the standard Cristian cop-out: "God is just testing our faith". Nothing can get by this all incompassing the Christians are right rule.

For Christians, the bible has built-in defences against this kind of thing: Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God (Matthew 4:7, according to bible-kjv), so you're sunk either way - if God doesn't exist then prayer has no effect (except maybe the placebo effect). If he/she/it does exist he'll/she'll/it'll hide his/her/its hand so that you can't make him/her/it do stuff...


...or perhaps I am just overanalyzing, which is often the case.

No, not at all. The point Jay brings up illustrates nicely the self reenforcing nature of religious memeplexes. Modern religions wouldn't have lasted for thousands of years if they hadn't evolved these defensive systems.

I'm so surprised.  [sfty]

It really is amazing that respectable research universities continue to waste their funding trying to validate such obvious rubbish ...goes to show how culturally retarded beliefs continue to impede progress -- even in the ivory towers of academia.

The study was funded by the Templeton foundation.

They've put out an "official statement" regarding the study on their front page.

I'm not surprised either that prayer does not help heart patients. Here is an opposing view....

Prayer may drive one even further into (self) helplessness. Prayer appears to be an act of handing responsibility over to a seperate entity i.e the power of GOD.

If the heart condition was the result of self abuse/lack of care how will prayer help. Responsibility needs to be taken for your actions.

For the record, I think that prayer is a beautiful act. However, unless the condition is an uncontrolable, the most productive thing to do is accept the reality of the situation and to move on.

And yes I can see how faith in a higher compassionate being may help minimise stress in the situation and yes I do believe in the power of pyschosomatics but prevention is better than a cure and in alot of situations the prevention comes in the form of taking full responsibility of your health.

I'm not surprised either that prayer does not help heart patients. Here is an opposing view....

Dude the trial was about intercessory prayer involving double-blind setting, thus your comment does not apply here. I actually think that praying might have important stress relieving properties but that was not being tested here.

The setting was such that there was one group that thought they were being prayed at but were not and another group that thought they were being prayed at and really were so. I don't know what other people think but in my opinion that has got to be the dumbest trial ever.

See my post above:
http://www.imminst.o...65

Opales, I do agree it is a waste of time and money to be studying such nonsense, but since it did indeed take place, there is no harm in discussing it, I think.

I do agree it is a waste of time and money to be studying such nonsense

I strongly disagree about it being a waste. It sounds absurd, but history is full of instances where people continued to believe what we now know to be false simply for the fact that they went by the "everyone knows" method of science. Instead of actually putting a claim to the test, just laughing off the possibility. Two strong examples I can think of are the development of neurology when Thomas Willis actually put the untested theories which had become "common sense, everyday knowledge" about the relation of mind and anatomy to the experimental process. The other is the initial controversy around the claims of Anton van Leeuwenhoek that humans were covered in tiny invisible animals of bizarre shape and activity. Both had detractors who felt that the propositions being put before them were so ludicrous that to even hear their argument out, let along put it to the test, would be an insult to science.

The main importance of science to me is its utility as a prosthesis to make up for the illogical nature of much of our mental processes, and for letting us move beyond the inherent bias which we may have put over some issues. To use it in that fashion, we're pretty much stuck with using it as a catchall for any seemingly stupid, but testable, idea put out there. Most of us would like to assume we'd not have sat around mocking Leeuwenhoek's colourful rants about invisible creatures, viewable only with "his" microscope, which "sometimes stuck out two little horns, which were continually moved, after the fashion of a horse's ears". Unfortunately, I could easily see myself doing so were a similar situation to appear. As a result, I'm willing to look at absolutely anything which has been put to a well designed experiment.

I strongly disagree about it being a waste. It sounds absurd, but history is full of instances where people continued to believe what we now know to be false simply for the fact that they went by the "everyone knows" method of science. Instead of actually putting a claim to the test, just laughing off the possibility. Two strong examples I can think of are the development of neurology when Thomas Willis actually put the untested theories which had become "common sense, everyday knowledge" about the relation of mind and anatomy to the experimental process. The other is the initial controversy around the claims of Anton van Leeuwenhoek that humans were covered in tiny invisible animals of bizarre shape and activity. Both had detractors who felt that the propositions being put before them were so ludicrous that to even hear their argument out, let along put it to the test, would be an insult to science.

The main importance of science to me is its utility as a prosthesis to make up for the illogical nature of much of our mental processes, and for letting us move beyond the inherent bias which we may have put over some issues. To use it in that fashion, we're pretty much stuck with using it as a catchall for any seemingly stupid, but testable, idea put out there. Most of us would like to assume we'd not have sat around mocking Leeuwenhoek's colourful rants about invisible creatures, viewable only with "his" microscope, which "sometimes stuck out two little horns, which were continually moved, after the fashion of a horse's ears". Unfortunately, I could easily see myself doing so were a similar situation to appear. As a result, I'm willing to look at absolutely anything which has been put to a well designed experiment.

In the presence of abudant resources, I would be more than willing to open myself up to the most unprobable experiments. However, we happen to live in a real world where resources are unfortunately scarce.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarcity

That's why resources should be directed at experiments most likely having positive impact. Because the experimental setting at hand defied pretty much the entire body of knowledge in modern science, I am confident in saying that it had essentially zero (a priori) probability of producing positive results. Science builds upon prior science. The only good thing that might come out of this would be if some religion bound people would be shaken out of their fantasy world back to reality, but I doubt such thing will happen because their beliefs are not rational to begin with.

Good point opales.

Here is an example of another "useless" study that steals valuble research money

Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

I betting that some will argue that it was useful to support their case

Let me me give you a good piece of advice here. Don't be so harsh when it comes to God and prayer. You're probably going to need some before it's over with.

I suspect that the scientists who are trying to scientifically measure the success of prayer are on the wrong track too. Prayer, like God, will not be easily captured and recorded in a scientific experiment. There are limits to what science can accomplish in religious matters such as this. You should instead be arguing that the scientists have a better understanding of the Bible and prayer before they engage in such experiments.

God, the Bible, and prayer are too deeply embedded in our culture and psyche to be completely uprooted by some type of new scientific philosophy of life or way of living. The best you can do is argue for a new and better understanding of the Bible to replace the false catholic and protestant interpretation that's causing all the problems. False religions are the problem, not God and the Bible.

Why don't you guys harp on the outer space program wasting funds that could be better spent on earth improving society and health research - such as those anti-aging therapies you favor? See http://www.slate.com...7/entry/2078237.

I suspect that the scientists who are trying to scientifically measure the success of prayer are on the wrong track too.

That's a pretty weak statement william

Prayer, like God, will not be easily captured and recorded in a scientific experiment. There are limits to what science can accomplish in religious matters such as this. You should instead be arguing that the scientists have a better understanding of the Bible and prayer before they engage in such experiments.

Science is not measuring for the presence of God and hence this statement does not apply. Science is measuring for a physiological/pyschological effect based on a faith, which in this case is faith in God and prayer. There is a lot of science to back the benefits of Transcendential meditation

Effects of a randomized controlled trial of transcendental meditation on components of the metabolic syndrome in subjects with coronary heart disease.

Paul-Labrador M, Polk D, Dwyer JH, Velasquez I, Nidich S, Rainforth M, Schneider R, Merz CN.

Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Cedars-Sinai Research Institute, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles 90048, USA.

BACKGROUND: The metabolic syndrome is thought to be a contributor to coronary heart disease (CHD), and components of the syndrome have been identified as possible therapeutic targets. Previous data implicate neurohumoral activation related to psychosocial stress as a contributor to the metabolic syndrome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of transcendental meditation ™ on components of the metabolic syndrome and CHD. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial of 16 weeks of TM or active control treatment (health education), matched for frequency and time, at an academic medical center in a total of 103 subjects with stable CHD. Main outcome measures included blood pressure, lipoprotein profile, and insulin resistance determined by homeostasis model assessment (calculated as follows: [(fasting plasma glucose level [in milligrams per deciliter] x fasting plasma insulin level [in microunits per milliliter]) x 0.0552]/22.5); endothelial function measured by brachial artery reactivity testing; and cardiac autonomic system activity measured by heart rate variability. RESULTS: The TM group had beneficial changes (measured as mean ,/- SD) in adjusted systolic blood pressure (-3.4 +/- 2.0 vs 2.8 +/- 2.1 mm Hg; P = .04), insulin resistance (-0.75 +/- 2.04 vs 0.52 +/- 2.84; P = .01), and heart rate variability (0.10 +/- 0.17 vs -0.50 +/- 0.17 high-frequency power; P = .07) compared with the health education group, respectively. There was no effect of brachial artery reactivity testing. CONCLUSIONS: Use of TM for 16 weeks in CHD patients improved blood pressure and insulin resistance components of the metabolic syndrome as well as cardiac autonomic nervous system tone compared with a control group receiving health education. These results suggest that TM may modulate the physiological response to stress and improve CHD risk factors, which may be a novel therapeutic target for the treatment of CHD.

PMID: 16772250 [PubMed - in process]<!--QuoteEnd]Why don't you guys harp on the outer space program wasting funds that could be better spent on earth improving society and health research - such as those anti-aging therapies you favor?

william said:

Why don't you guys harp on the outer space program wasting funds that could be better spent on earth improving society and health research - such as those anti-aging therapies you favor?

Because the title of the topic reads "Prayer does not help heart patients". Additionally, you keep saying "God" and quoting the bible. There is a stigma attached to doing that william. Because alot of people in society have progressed to a more modern way of thinking that is not so narrow minded and excluding. If you didn't mention the word "God" or quote the bible so much in this scientific community you wouldn't get ridiculed so much. Even if you used the word "belief" or "faith" but you continue to push your views with such arrogance and lack of reason. It's a shame william because alot of your posts would be better received.

It sort of reminds me of a scientific conference I was at once. We were all standing around looking at the poster presentations and a girl was asked about her poster. In the explaination she mentioned the word "God" and the people around me nearly choked on their marinated vegie foccacias. I felt like getting involved and making some comments but the topic for me is emotionally driven. Thank god she didn't have references to the bible at the bottom of her poster.....God et.al (2005 B.C) The evolution of mitochondria and life as we know it.Bk. of Geneis 16 (1): 123-27.

You made my point perfectly Zoo! My Bible says God hears and answers the prayers of the righteous. The book says God will heal those who have a sufficient amount of faith in Him. What if those people in the study who were praying or being prayed for lacked the required level of faith so God didn't answer their prayer for healing? What if the people who prayed did so to a mother Mary statute or with rosary beads or on a Sunday which is not God's true Sabbath? God is not likely to hear and answer prayers from those who are not practicing the religion He gave and requires to be followed.

I'm sure the transcendental meditation you mention reduces stress and contributes to health and healing. This, however, isn't the same type of healing God offers in the Bible to true believers who practice His Word correctly. The healing He gives is much better.

If there is a stigma or ridicule for believing in and advocating God and the Bible as you say, then so be it. My Bible says I got to expect and accept that. I got to hang out with you guys on the basis of Matthew 9:12,13; 19:14; Malachi 4:4-6.

You made my point perfectly Zoo! My Bible says God hears and answers the prayers of the righteous. The book says God will heal those who have a sufficient amount of faith in Him.

I didn't say or mention anything about blackmail or rewards for being a good little boy.

What if those people in the study who were praying or being prayed for lacked the required level of faith so God didn't answer their prayer for healing?

Did they discuss this in the paper as a possible reason for no effect?

What if the people who prayed did so to a mother Mary statute or with rosary beads or on a Sunday which is not God's true Sabbath?

Perhaps they should have considered this when deciding on the approapriate protocol.

God is not likely to hear and answer prayers from those who are not practicing the religion He gave and requires to be followed.

That's pretty judgemental. IMHO the big problem here is that God decides what is right and wrong without allowing the follower to experiance to experiance the truth of what IS right and wrong first hand. Instead, if you commit wrong by God you will be punished by God and not by the act of committing the wrong itself. It's gotta a bit of Nazi regime attitude to it. "Do as I say or you will burn in hell!"

I'm sure the transcendental meditation you mention reduces stress and contributes to health and healing. This, however, isn't the same type of healing God offers in the Bible to true believers who practice His Word correctly. The healing He gives is much better.

The effects of TM are thought to be the result making the willful intent to focus on the breath/mantra. This starts a cascade of events that seperates the thinker/subject from their environment. Inhibition of the thalamus and sensory input, activation of the parasympathetic nervous system, stimulation of beta-enphins and so on. Interstingly, no such effect is seen with guided meditation. In guided meditation there is no willful intent. You pretty much give yourself up to the guided meditation. You escape. IMHO prayer is no different. It is an escapist approach which lacks the intent to take a hold of the situation i.e to focus on the here and now.

If there is a stigma or ridicule for believing in and advocating God and the Bible as you say, then so be it. My Bible says I got to expect and accept that. I got to hang out with you guys on the basis of Matthew 9:12,13; 19:14; Malachi 4:4-6.

Have you ever asked yourself honestly whether you believe what the bible preaches or have you just blindly offered your faith?

I guess I am filling in for Live Forever by quoting each line that you write with simple rebuttles that continue to demonstrate holes in your argument. From a realistic standpoint that is.

I might be blinded and consumed by my opinions regarding God and the Bible because I can't see an ounce of truth in what you are saying. Hey, but I am a realist though

Zoolander seems to be doing an awesome job of rebutting you, william, but did you ever think that statements like:

Prayer, like God, will not be easily captured and recorded in a scientific experiment. There are limits to what science can accomplish in religious matters such as this.

that you make smack of blind faith without reason. I could say that I believe in a giant leprechaun that pooped out all of the planets, and make up some ridiculous story about how he will throw giant gold nuggets at whoever is bad at the end of time, or some other such poppycock. I could then say that this being is outside of all scientific measurement and therefore cannot be proven or disproven. Do you see where I am going with this william?

For all intensive purposes, if a being cannot be shown to have interaction with us, and cannot even be shown to exist, why should anyone, logically, believe in such a being, or the works that such a being might or might not do? Why should anyone believe in a being that refuses to make itself clearly known?

Now, as zoolander pointed out, this study was just dealing with prayer, and not the issue of whether a god or gods exist, but the two often go hand in hand, thus my response in kind. William, you seem to like to quote the Bible and other dogmatic teachings for these types of situations, which is another reason people refuse to take you seriously. You should use logic and science, quote studies, papers published, logical inconsistencies with your opponent's position, etc. Do not blindly quote Bible verses and teachings that you have heard, but think for yourself, and your dividends might be higher. (just some friendly advice)