| finding. This higher dropout rate, since the mortality rate in the two groups was the same, suggests that the prayer group, for unknown reasons, was not quite as ill as the control group since the patients discharged within a day often turn out not to have serious problems. If they were a little liess ill at the start, we would expect them to have a more favorable course. 3) The conclusions stated in this investigation, as I’ll describe shortly, are not justified by the data. Positive findings in a scientific study are not considered valid until replicated by independent investigators. So did the Hrris study replicate the positive findings of the Byrd Study? The answer is a resounding no! Of the 6 items in the list of 26 items previously described in the Byrd study where the prayed-for group did better, not one was statistically significant in the Harris study. When the Harris study subjected its data to the same scheme that Byrd had used in his evaluation of the hospital course of the patients (Table 3 in the Byrd study), the Harris study found the difference between the two groups of (.29) was not even close to being statistically significant. The Harris study did replicate the negative findings from the Byrd Study. There was no statistical difference in the days in the CCU, days in the hospital, or mortality. In remarks at the end of the Harris study, the investigators stated: “Our findings support Byrd’s conclusions despite the fact that we could not document an effect of prayer using his scoring system.” This statement is erroneous. Not only do these findings not support Byrd’s conclusions, they directly refute them. The most recent study and, I believe, the best designed one, was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in December 2001, entitled “Intercessory Prayer and Cardiovascular Disease Progression in a Coronary Care Unit Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.” This third “gold standard” study should settle the matter once and for all scientifically. The investigators were Jennifer M. Aviles, M.D., and six others. This trial was done on patients immediately after discharge from the Coronary Care Unit, a time when the intensity of extraneous intercessory praying by family and friends would generally be waning. Here is their summary of the findings: “Patients and Methods: In this randomized, controlled trial conducted between 1997 and 1999, a total of 799 coronary care unit patients were randomized at hospital discharge to the intercessory prayer group or to the control group . . . The primary end point after 26 weeks was any of the following: death, cardiac arrest, rehospitalization for cardiovascular disease, coronary revascularization, or an emergency department visit for cardiovascular disease. Patients were divided into a high-group based on the presence of any 5 risk factors (age > or = 70 years, diabetes mellitus, prior myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral vascular disease) or a low-risk group (absence of risk factors) for subsequent primary events.” The investigators summarized their findings as follows: “Conclusion: As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.” Not even one difference showed up between the control group and the prayed-for group. The statistical studies from the nineteenth century, and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in an desperate effort to confirm their beliefs. Now that you have the scientific information, don’t’ let the statement that the efficacy of prayer has been proven by scientific studies go unchallenged. It’s simply untrue. |