This was specifically a study on distant prayer.
Most of the studies in peer review medical journals regarding the effects of prayer on healing also deal with distant prayer, such as Harris etal, in Arch Intern Med from 1999; and Byrd in Southern Medical Journal, July 1988.
I am not familiar with peer review publication of studies looking at the effects of prayer "over" the patient, (or annointing with oil). Perhaps this could be done, but it would have to be limited to comatose patients to limit the placebo effect.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Fischer
To: ASA
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: prayer and healing
It's too bad they didn't have a fourth group where they actually did what the Bible says to do: "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord" (Jas 5:14).
Dick Fischer
Dick Fischer, Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
If the increase in complicaions in the third group is real, perhaps it will
be cited as scientific confirmation of the command to pray in secret (Matt.
6:6).
__
Louise M. Freeman, PhD
Psychology Dept
Mary Baldwin College
Staunton, VA 24401
540-887-7326
FAX 540-887-7121
-----Original Message-----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: <asa@calvin.edu>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 15:06:50 -0500
Subject: prayer and healing
> There are some interesting findings in a large study on the effects of
> distant prayer on healing in today's "American Heart Journal":
>
> 1800 patients were randomized into three groups. One group was told
> they
> "might" be the object of distant prayer, and they were. Another group
> was
> told the same thing, but they were not. And the third group was
> promised it
> would receive prayer and did.
>
> The findings were interesting. Not only did distant prayer not help,
> but
> being told they were being prayed for seemed to increased
> complications, the
> most common complication being atrial fibrillation.
>
> The first two groups had the same complication rates, about 50%. The
> third
> group had a complication rate of 59%. The authors were not sure this
> increased complication rate is real, and did little speculation on the
> cause.
>
Received on Fri Mar 31 21:01:43 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Mar 31 2006 - 21:01:43 EST