Post-morbid effects of retro-active intercessory prayer

Does it help to pray for seriously ill patients? The results of well-designed clinical trials of intercessory prayer generally say no.

But a not-so-recent study published by the British Medical Journal (22 December, 2001) brought a new twist to the issue. The experiment randomized 3393 patients with bloodstream infections to two groups. The treatment group received intercessory prayer; the control group received none. Both groups received appropriate medical treatment.

The twist? The  patients got the  prayer intervention four to ten years after they had recovered or died.

Yes, you read that correctly. The subjects were patients at a British hospital between 1990 and 1996. The trial was done in 2000.

The report led Dr. Steven Novella, host of the podcast The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, who discovered it recently, to fulminate at length about the absurdity of the study.

No argument there, Steve.

Until the following week, a listener informed the skeptics that the BMJ has a “Christmas fools day” tradition of publishing hoaxes around the time of the winter solstice.

Novella and his fellow skeptics declared themselves honestly fooled.

Interestingly, the prankster author, Leonard Leibovici, included enough information in the abstract to entice readers to investigate further. Prayer had no effect on mortality, but it did significantly reduce hospital stay and length of fever. Such reports from genuine studies are usually the result of cherry-picking: researchers perform statistical analysis on dozens of outcome measures and pick the few that (inevitably) come  up significant.

And, of course, Leibovici included a recommendation that post-morbid intercessory prayer be a part of clinical practice.

About aharmlessdrudge

Way back during the late Bronze age -- actually it was the 1950s -- all of us in high school had to take a vocational test to determine our interests and, supposedly, our future careers. I cannot remember the outcome, but I do recall one question that gave me pause. "If you were to win a Nobel prize, would it be in literature or in physics?" I hesitated over the question: although I enjoyed mathematics and science more than English class, I did have a couple of unfinished (and very bad) novels hidden away at home. I cannot remember what I chose back then, but the dilemma followed me to university, where I switched from mathematics to English and -- after a five-year stint in journalism -- back to mathematics. I recently retired as a professor of statistics. Retirement. What a good chance to revive my literary ambitions. I have finished a novel -- more about that in good time -- and a rubble of drafts of articles about mathematics and statistics is taking up space on my hard disk.
This entry was posted in Hoaxes, Religion, Science and Medicine, Skepticism and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s