In all ages, the public has clamored for magical cures, many of which are now recognized in retrospect as irrational or even comical. Many people are unaware, however, that even in this age of effective scientific medicine they are embracing pseudo-scientific therapy that in the future will be looked back on in the same way.

Quackery became big business after the Civil War, fueled by the large scale manufacture of patent medicines and their distribution in frontier areas  by “medicine men” who traveled in horse-drawn wagons covered with ads for patent medicines. This type of distribution eventually developed into full-blown medicine shows with acrobats, elephants, and magic acts to entertain a gullible audience.

Many of the patent medicines’ claims were not encumbered by logic. The King of Pain was good for baldness or deafness, or whatever the patient had. Colder’s Liquid Beef Tonic was sold as a cure for alcoholism, even though it contained over 26% alcohol. Simmons Liver Regulator was a remedy for everything, including “disgust for food and prostration of the system.” One of the best patent medicine sellers of the nineteenth century was Dr. Miles Compound Extract of Tomato, guaranteed to reach a person’s “weak” spot. Today it is known as ketchup.

Rather than being an amusing and interesting relic of history, the “medicine man” still operates in our midst. He is spiffed up and hardly recognizable any longer. He operates out of attractive shops, offices, hospitals, and medical education facilities. What he dispenses is backed up with impressive pseudo-scientific jargon and poorly designed studies. He spreads his message widely to an eager public with advertising dispensed by the best public relation firms. The harsh designation of “quack” is hardly ever associated with him. He is now practicing “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM).

In our culture, “alternative medicine” is any healing practice that is used in place of conventional medicine. It includes measures that lack scientific proof or that have already been disproved, such as naturopathy, chiropractic, herbalism, traditional Chinese medicine, Unani, Ayurveda, yoga, biofeedback, hypnosis, homeopathy, acupuncture, and others. “Complementary  medicine” refers to the same measures used in addition to conventional medicine. Note carefully that for the rest of this article the unwieldy phrase “complementary and alternative medicine” will be abbreviated as CAM.

According to a large federal survey released in 2008, more than one-third of adults and nearly 12% of children use CAM. Overall, the use of CAM appears to have stabilized compared to a study done five years earlier.

The problem with the designation “alternative medicine” is that “alternative” suggests an equal status with conventional medicine and implies that “alternative medicine” would be a rational substitute.

David Eisenberg, director of the Harvard Medical School’s division for research and education in complementary and integrative medical therapies, stated that, “I think the news is complementary and alternative medicine use by the U.S. public is here to stay.” He may be right, but many in the medical field are disturbed by the trend, since most CAM therapy has not been evaluated by well-designed investigations, and those that have been evaluated  are overwhelmingly found to be ineffective.

Wallace Sampson, founding editor of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, summed up the situation succinctly: “They are either unproven or disproved. Acupuncture is a placebo. Homeopathy is one step above fraud. It goes on and on. The fact that they are so widely used is evidence for how gullible large segments of our society are.” He has also stated: “Most alternative medicine is quackery by another name.”

The most frequently used form of CAM is dietary and herbal products. Currently, the only legal requirement for these products is that they cannot be promoted as preventing or treating disease. The Federal Drug Administration can intervene only when a product is shown to be harmful. The reality is that these products often are promoted for the prevention and treatment of disease, in spite of the legal requirements.

In addition to a gross misdirection of our precious healthcare dollars toward largely placebo therapy, there are other problems with dietary and herbal products:

1. Lack of standardization. When the few herbs that have active ingredients are assayed, the amount is often lower or higher than stated on the label.
2. Contaminants. Sometimes the remedies contain pesticides, heavy metals, carcinogens, and bovine products (remote risk of “mad cow disease”).
3. Occasional serious or even fatal side-effects. Ephedra products have been the most dangerous since they have produced adverse cardiac reactions, including sudden death.
4. Adverse interactions with prescribed medications. Only about one third of patients tell their physicians about alternative products.
5. Using alternative therapy in  place of proven medical treatments. This action can have serious or fatal results.

The government has played a large part in making CAM mainstream, and much of the government promotion has been by one individual, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa. In 1992 he was a powerful member of the appropriations subcommittee in charge of the National Institute of Health (NIH) and slipped a line in the report accompanying the appropriations bill that created the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM) with one million dollars in seed money.

In 1999 President Clinton signed into law an appropriations bill that changed the name of the Office of Alternative Medicine to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). The budget was pumped up to 50 million dollars a year, which enabled the organization to establish a national center at Bastyr University, a naturopathic college outside of Seattle.

Harkin is a great believer in alternative therapies. His conviction in these modalities was cemented when he concluded that his hay fever had been cured by bee pollen. There is no evidence in the scientific literature that bee pollen can cure anything, and it can cause life-threatening allergic reactions. The Federal Trade Commission fined Harkin’s bee pollen distributor $200,000 for false claims.

Harkin’s main motive in establishing the Office of Alternative Medicine appears to have been to promote the use by the public of alternative therapies. Little scientific investigation was done. Harkin criticized the “unbendable rules of randomized clinical trials” and, citing his use of bee pollen, to treat his allergies, stated: “It is not necessary for the scientific community to understand the process before the American public can benefit from these therapies.” Harkin’s office reportedly pressured the OAM to fund studies of specific “pet theories,” including bee pollen and antineoplastons.

When the OAM became the NCCAM, one of the main goals was to evaluate alternative therapies with rigorous scientific studies.  After ten years of evaluating many herbal and other alternative health remedies and spending 2.5 billion dollars, the sad fact is that not a single one has been found effective. Popular herbal remedies such as St. John’s wort, echinacea, saw palmetto, and ginkgo biloba were no more effective than a placebo.

Despite these definitive scientific studies, NCCAM has never stated that these measures were ineffective. Dr. Stephen Barrett, a retired physician who runs Quackwatch, a web site on medical scams, states: “There’s been a deliberate policy of never saying something doesn’t work. It’s as though you can only speak in one direction and say a different version or dose might give different results.” And even if negative findings do reach practitioners of CAM and its enthusiasts in the public, there often is no effect on behavior since such conclusions are based on faith rather than evidence.

The biggest waste of taxpayer money by NCCAM is repeating tests on measures that have already been disproved by good scientific studies and studying measures that have no scientific rationale for working.

An example of repeating studies on measures already disproved is a study on chelation therapy underway on 2,300 patients, even though smaller controlled trials have been negative (and scientific rationale is lacking and deaths have occurred). Examples of funding studies that violate the basic tenets of science are: therapeutic touch for wrist fractures in postmenopausal women, use of Reiki for patients with advanced AIDS, and distance healing in wound healing.

Clearly, by any objective standard, NCCAM has been a failure. Any good studies that it has done could just as easily have been done by other departments of the National Institute of Health with more scientific vigor and better public communication.

Despite its negative findings, NCCAM has continued to promote the proliferation of CAM by offering grants to money-starved medical education facilities. Sixty percent of standard medical schools, 95% of osteopathic medical schools, and 85% of nursing schools teach some form of CAM. With a few exceptions, CAM is not taught as an objective scientific appraisal but from an advocacy viewpoint.

Dr. Wallace Sampson, the CAM expert mentioned earlier, clearly appraises the significance of this spread of CAM to medical education facilities : “Teaching about alternative medicine implies acceptance of it and potentially creates more gullibility and less critical, objective thinking. This will be felt in many indirect ways, including judgment errors, misguiding people with severe diseases, and tax standards and laws.”

Instead of  the “medicine man” of the nineteenth century being relegated to his proper place as a historical relic, he still walks proudly among us enjoying great respect and adulation, sometimes even in the halls of our most prestigious medical educational institutions. Steven P. Novella, Assistant Professor of Neurology, Yale University School of Medicine is certainly right when he states we are in  “the golden age of quackery and anti-science.”

What can be done to counteract this embrace of quackery and anti-science by many in the general public? I am under no illusions that any measures will eliminate quackery and anti-science entirely, but certain ones over time can be helpful. My suggestions are these:

First, eliminate NCCAM and do any research with a reasonable chance of a positive result under already established units of the National Institute of Health. For political reasons this will be difficult since true believers in CAM in Congress strongly support the organization. Strong public pressure to accomplish this will be needed and is lacking at present.

Second, increase science education and scientific (critical) thinking in schools. These measures over time would probably be the most effective.

Third, scientists themselves must be actively involved in educating members of the general public about science and scientific thinking.

Fourth, the general public should screen candidates for Congress as to their scientific knowledge and their ability to use scientific thinking.

Sometimes I slip into a funk worrying about why some of my fellow human beings aren’t more rational. Perhaps a heavy dose of Dr. Miles Compound Extract of Tomato (ketchup) will reach my “weak spot” and lift my spirits.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2

With all of the fun and fascination at Skeptrack 2009, a couple of controversies emerged in the conversations there. The first, discussed openly in a few panels, was the role of religion in the skeptic/atheist/freethought movement. This is still a sore spot for some, particularly given the wide range of individuals who fall under the freethought umbrella. The second controversy, the dearth of women and other minorities in freethought, was more subtle and didn’t get its own discussion panel. It was left to casual hallway conversations but has become a hot discussion topic in the freethinker blogosphere in the past weeks.

Should skeptics talk about religion and faith? Why should atheists care about ghost hunting and aliens? Why is this even a problem? The problem lies in the wide-ranging spectrum of freethought. While there is a large overlap of skeptical thought and non-belief in religion, there are differences at both ends. On the one hand, religion is a personal issue for many skeptics, of no interest until it begins to infringe on science, medical care, or education. On the other hand there are atheists who are skeptical but don’t care to tackle ghosts and psychics. Personal woo seems harmless and is only of interest when it achieves cult status.

That leads us to the kinds of tensions that arise at large events like Skeptrack and James Randi’s The Amazing Meetings. These gatherings cover both topics. Skeptrack had panels on everything from “The Truth About Ghost Hunting” to “The Future of Atheism.” Ultimately, we have to remember that we are truly a “big tent” movement. Some of us are going to have to accept that the discussion of UFOs and lake monsters is just another way to promote critical thinking; some of us are going to have to accept that religion is a topic that can and should be debunked like any other. I am hopeful that the freethought movement can handle this challenge. We skeptics are intelligent, passionate people with the ability to realize that we can share our strength at the places where we converge. Everything else is just details.

As far as the demographic issues, the freethought movement is still largely older, white, and male. Women are making large inroads but may still feel like outsiders. Few minorities show up at skeptic groups and events, and college outreach is still in the early stages. Fortunately, I don’t think freethinkers are overtly sexist, racist, or homophobic, except for a few unfortunate exceptions. The biases that still linger are an issue to be sure, but those which a group of rational people could overcome if they wanted.

I don’t want to get into the gender issue too much as it’s been far better covered by others, particularly at Skepchick.org and in an excellent two-part post this week from Greta Christina’s atheist blog.

I would mention, however, that I think Derek and Swoopy, the hosts of the Skepticality podcast and directors of Skeptrack, did a wonderful job this year of bringing balance to the female equation. Women were well represented at the panels and were not only included but also leaders in discussions of science, the future of the movement, education, and critical thinking. The Skepchick panel was a big hit with the attendees and is a strong force for attracting young, female critical thinkers.

Getting together at events like Skeptrack at DragonCon is wonderful and fun and one of the best ways to grow and evolve the freethought movement. Despite a 30+ year history of advancing critical thinking, the current freethought movement is still young enough and really just coming into its own. I believe that we still have the time, the resources, and the open minds to handle these challenges and controversies and create a more cohesive, inclusive, and stronger group going forward. Stick around. Things are just starting to get interesting!

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 1
2. Education is Not Just for Kids
3. Foundations of Freethought

I was riding along on the flotsam and jetsam of topical hyperlinks from website to website, when I came across an article at ezinesarticles.com titled, “Thimerosal: Autism and Mercury Poisoning Side Effects?” by Margaret Wommack. I have had about enough of misleading journalism, pop culture, and con artists who are victimizing the public at large.

In Wommack’s case I can’t tell if she is just ignorant of the science and is practicing lazy journalism by not vetting her information, or if she is a willing shill of the anti-vax cabal. She is a small voice in the growing chorus of the ignorant and the ignoble crying wolf on the vaccination front.

In the offending article, thimerosal is wrongly set up as the culprit for all sorts of nasty conditions including autism. Then something strange happens; the author switches up and puts the blame on mercury.

“Mercury causes such concern because it is the second most toxic element on earth and has been known to cause learning disabilities, autism, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis (MS), fibromyalgia, lupus, arthritis, depression, and bipolar disorder. Even seemingly small amounts of mercury have major, deadly consequences and mercury poisoning affects the kidneys and the nervous system. Other effects of mercury poisoning include burning feeling in the limbs, mental side effects such as loss of memory, vision and hearing, other psychological effects, paralysis, congenital malformations, kidney failure, and even death.”

Now it is true that thimerosal is a type of mercury, but like alcohol there are different types and one should not confuse methyl and ethyl while partying. Thimerosal is found in the environment and at normal levels is completely safe. Thimerosal that was used in vaccines was found to be way below normal environmental exposure for babies. As reported in Neurologica Blog on Jan 29, 2009.

“A new study published yesterday (Monday) in the journal Pediatrics provides more evidence against any link between thimerosal (a mercury-based preservative in some vaccines) and autism or other neurological disorders. This study adds to the large and growing body of scientific evidence for the safety of vaccines, and contradicting the claims of the anti-vaccine movement that vaccines cause autism.”

Furthermore, while there is no scientific evidence that links thimerosal and autism,

“Since 2001, with the exception of some influenza (flu) vaccines, thimerosal is not used as a preservative in routinely recommended childhood vaccines.” (cdc.gov/vaccinesafety)

Yet Wommack claims that “The continued use of mercury-based preservatives in vaccines is dangerous and drug companies know it.” What is her evidence? Where are her citations? Misleading the public on this issue has real consequences. Concerned parents are erroneously choosing not to vaccinate their children and some of those kids will get sick and others will be infected and many may die.

Many childhood diseases have been virtually eliminated by safe and efficacious vaccines for decades now. Bad and undisciplined journalism as well as pop-cultured misinformation is endangering our society.

According to the CDC, the leading cause of childhood deaths now are car accidents. In 2005 a tragic 1,335 children between 0-14 years old died. Keep referring back to that horrible number as you read the next paragraph.

Successes of vaccines are staggeringly good, and lack of societal memories of a time before the immunizations were mandatory have rendered us unable to recognize such remarkable advancements.

• Smallpox in the US afflicted tens of thousands of children every year, leaving them scarred, ill, or dead.
• Fifty thousand children a year contracted Polio before the vaccine, including 13,000-20,000 of the paralytic kind. Thousands of children were confined to leg braces, others were destined to crutches or wheel chairs. Many were confined to the iron lung as the only means of treatment.
• If exposed to Measles, 90% of any unvaccinated population will contract the virus.  Before 1963 more than 90% of Americans by the time they were 15-years-old had the disease, causing 500 deaths a year.  The Vax worked so well that there were 894,134 cases in 1941 to 89 cases in 1998 and 44 cases in 2002.
• Then there is the success over Pertussis (Whooping Cough), Diphtheria, Hib, Rubella, Hepatitis B, Tetanus, Mumps, Varicella (chickenpox). These childhood diseases each claimed from 100 to 10,000 young lives per year in the US alone (ecbt.org).

Modern science and real medicine have saved literally millions of lives through vaccines.  Yet there are advocates out there who either haven’t done their homework or are stupid and want these horrible diseases to return.

Educate a doubter and save the children.

Related posts:

1. Education is Not Just for Kids
2. Theoretically Speaking

[The second and third large, prospective, randomized, double blind studies that pass muster as valid scientific investigations of the effects of prayer on human health.]

The second study that appears to meet the “gold standard” for scientific studies was one entitled “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit.” It was published in the October 25, 1999 edition of the Archives of Internal Medicine, and the investigators were William S. Harris, Ph.D. plus eight others of the Mid America Heart Institute. The study was done at Saint Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri, a private, university-associated hospital.

The investigators stated: ”The purpose of the present study was to attempt to replicate Byrd’s findings by testing the hypothesis that patients who are unknowingly and remotely prayed for by blinded intercessors will experience fewer complications and have a shorter hospital stay than patients not receiving such prayer.” The intercessors, five to pray for each patient (compared to three to seven in Byrd’s study), were to pray for “a speedy recovery with no complications” plus “anything else that seemed appropriate to them.”  1013 patients were randomized, 484 to the prayer group, and 529 to the usual care group. After removal of those patients who spent less than 24 hours in the CCU (prayer was not started until 24 hours after admission), 524 remained in the usual care group and 466 in the prayer group (I’ll mention this high drop-out rate in the prayer group shortly).

A list of events after entry into the study was compiled, much like the one in the Byrd study, but with 34 events instead of the 26 in the Byrd Study. Again, a scheme was devised to evaluate the overall hospital course, a totally new and untested system, but different from the also new and untested one devised by Byrd. The Harris study scheme was called the Mid America Heart Institute-Cardiac Care Unit (MAHI-CCU) Scoring System, and its criteria are presented in “Table 1” of his paper.

The only finding in the Harris study that indicated the prayer group outperformed the control group was in using the MAHI-CCU Scoring System and then only at a probability level of (.04), a figure very close to the cut-off level of (.05).

The Harris study is a much better study than the Byrd study because the number of patients is larger, it appears to be completely blinded, and the degree of religiosity of the investigators appears to be less (although Dr. Harris supposedly supports the idea of “intelligent design”). Nevertheless, scientific investigators have noted flaws: 1) As already noted, the MAHI-CCU Scoring System has never been previously scientifically validated. Without such validation, any result produced by it is subject to question. 2) The much higher dropout rate in the first 24 hours in the prayer group is a very serious criticism of the study. The statistical probability that this finding would appear by chance is (.001), or 1 chance in a 1000, a statistically very significant 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 patients discharged within a day often turn out not to have serious problems. If they were a little less 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 Harris study replicate the positive findings of the Byrd study? The answer is a resounding no! In the 6 items in the list of 26 that I previously described in the Byrd study where the prayed for group did better, not one of these items 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 statistically difference in 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. Their findings not only don’t support Byrd’s conclusions but directly refute them. How the editorial board that agreed to publish this article allowed this statement to stand is a mystery to me.

The most recent study, and, I believe, the best designed one, was published in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings in December, 2001, and was 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 that wrote the study were Jennifer M. Aviles, MD 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 of 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: “Conclusions: 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 a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs. But 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.

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 1
2. Scientific Evidence on Homosexuality
3. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

Many religious people want to cling to the ancient belief in the supernatural, including prayer, and yet accept the conclusions and benefits of modern science. They can’t have it both ways. To study the natural world, scientists must have an implicit understanding that science operates only by natural, predictable processes, ones that can not be affected arbitrarily by an all-powerful deity.

One of the major ways that scientists provide proof of theories is by doing well designed studies, of which the “gold standard” is the large, randomized, prospective, controlled, double blind type. If such a study could be influenced by a personal god who responded to prayers to change the results, science would be in shambles. There would be no way to ever do a valid experiment since investigators couldn’t be sure that someone, somewhere, hadn’t uttered a specific or generic prayer that would affect the study. In short, science by its very nature, rejects any influence of prayer on the physical world.

Even though prayer is an irrational concept, could it nevertheless be tested scientifically? Francis Galton, the brilliant and eccentric half cousin of Charles Darwin, thought so and gave the idea scientific legitimacy. Galton was the father of biometry and a central figure in the founding of modern statistical analysis. He argued that regardless of how the prayers “may be supposed to operate,” the efficacy of prayer … is a perfectly appropriate and legitimate subject of scientific inquiry” because it can be tested statistically. He then proceeded to set up such studies.

In one statistical study, Galton examined data from a previous study by Guy on longevity. Galton first focused on clergy. He reasoned that clergy should be the longest lived of all since they were the most “prayerful class” of all and among the most prayed for. When Galton compared the longevity of eminent clergy with eminent doctors and lawyers, the clergy were the shortest lived of the three groups. Galton next focused on royalty, who were much prayed for, when compared to other members of the aristocracy. In analyzing the data on royalty, Galton concluded: “Sovereigns are literally the shortest lived of all who have the advantage of affluence.”

Galton looked for other statistical data. He examined the insurance rates for ships. He reasoned that ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims should have lower rates since frequent praying by the occupants should decrease the number of accidents. He found that the rates were the same; ships carrying missionaries and pilgrims sank just as often as other ships.

Following up on Galton’s statistical studies on prayer, Rupert Sheldrake, a Cambridge trained plant biologist, did one of his own. He examined the effects of prayer in India. Most people there prefer having a son, and a tremendous amount of praying goes into the effort to produce one. Sheldrake examined statistics of live male births in India and used data from England as a control where the preference for sons was less strong. He found that in both England and India there were 106 males to 100 females, just as in every other country. He stated, “If this enormous amount of psychic effort and praying of holy men were working, you would expect on average the percentage of live male births to be higher.”

Although these statistical studies from the nineteenth century strongly suggest that prayer is not effective, they do not meet the “gold standard,” as I previously described it, of a completely valid scientific study. But the media regularly mention a large number of contemporary studies that supposedly scientifically validate the beneficial effects of prayer on human health. So what is the truth in this matter? Actually, there are only three that meet the “gold standard.” Happily, the fact that there are only three studies considerably reduces the amount of information freethinkers need to acquire to refute frequent and erroneous claims.

Before we get into subjecting these three studies to critical analysis, let’s be sure that everyone understands what it means when we say that a finding in a scientific study is statistically significant. “Significant” has a very specific statistical meaning that applies in all scientific studies. A finding to be considered significant must be (.05) or less, which means the probability that it could be due to chance is 5 in 100. The main point to appreciate is that this figure, although reasonable, is strictly arbitrary. Therefore, the figure of (.05) is borderline significant, .04 (a probability of 4 in a 100 of being due to chance) is considered significant, and .06 (6 in 100) is considered not significant. I’ll bring out the importance of appreciating that the definition of “significant” is arbitrary in the Harris study.

The figure (.05) is the one accepted for “ordinary” scientific studies. But what criterion should be applied in proving a supernatural finding?  After all, as the old saw goes, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof, and this requirement should especially apply to claims of the supernatural. The James Randi Educational Foundation has a standing offer of one million dollars to anyone who can demonstrate any supernatural event under carefully controlled scientific conditions. The foundation has never had a single person who even got past the preliminary testing. Its members think that a study that would prove a claim of the supernatural should eliminate the possibility that the result could be by chance. They think a test should be devised where the possibility of a supernatural event happening would be in the range of 1 in 10,000,000, a far cry from 5 in 100.

One other point to be particularly aware of before we analyze the three studies is one that Robert Park brings out in his excellent book entitled Voodoo Science. He observes that a characteristic of voodoo science is that there are always very small differences in studies, ones that are just barely detectable, and ones that can’t be amplified in further investigations. These barely detectable positive results usually indicate flaws in the studies themselves rather than real findings.

Now let’s examine in some detail the three studies on intercessory prayer that were large, prospective, randomized, double blind ones, the only three that pass muster as valid scientific investigations of the effects of prayer on human health. Intercessory prayer (prayer at a distance) was chosen so that the placebo effect of direct prayer would be eliminated. All of these studies were done on coronary care unit (CCU) patients.

The first study was entitled “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population” by Randolph Byrd, M.D., published in the Southern Medical Journal, July, 1988. Dr. Byrd stated: “My study concerning prayer and patients in a general hospital coronary care unit was designed to answer two questions: (1) Does intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God have any effect on the patient’s medical condition and recovery while in the hospital? (2) How are these effects characterized, if present?

Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU at San Francisco General Hospital were randomized to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients). After randomization, each patient in the prayer group was assigned to three to seven intercessors, who were all “born again” Christians (according to the Gospel of John 3:3) of various denominations. Dr. Byrd states: “The patients first name, diagnosis, and general condition, along with pertinent updates on their condition, were given to the intercessors. The intercessory prayer was done outside the hospital daily until the patient was discharged from the hospital. Under the direction of a coordinator, each intercessor was asked to pray daily for a rapid recovery and for prevention of complications and death, in addition to other areas of prayer they believed to be beneficial to the patient.”

The results were summarized in “Table 2” of the Byrd study entitled “Results of Intercessory Prayer.” There was no statistically significant difference between the prayer and control group in these measurements: days in CCU after entry; days in hospital after entry; number of discharge medications. Only when a list of 26 “New Problems, Diagnoses, and Therapeutic Events After Entry” was compiled was any statistically differences found and then only in 6 of the items: congestive heart failure (.03); diuretics (.05); cardiopulmonary arrest (.02); pneumonia (.03); antibiotics (.005); intubation/ventilation (.002). When Dr. Byrd subjected these items to multivariate analysis (a statistical method of analyzing the overall significance when multiple factors are positive), he found the prayer group to better the control group at the statistically significant level of (.0001).

He then showed a “Table 3” that is entitled “Results of Scoring the Post-entry Hospital Course” in which he constructed three categories, “Good, Intermediate, and Bad,” using a self-designed and previously not scientifically validated method. The prayer group bettered the control group at a level of (.01).

Although this study appears to meet the “gold standard” of a large, prospective, randomized, double blind investigation, scientists have pointed out a number of flaws:

•    The study was not “blinded” in two respects: 1) Janet Greene, the coordinator of the study, on whom Dr. Byrd depended for the collection of data, knew exactly who was being prayed for, and interacted regularly with the patients in the study. 2) “Table 3” was formulated by Dr. Byrd at the request of editors who initially evaluated his paper after the “blinding” had been removed.
•    There was no difference in clear-cut end points such as days in the CCU, days in the hospital, or mortality between the two groups. Only when complicated statistical analyses were done on a long list of items do any data emerge that favor the prayed for group – hardly evidence of an all-powerful deity. Also, if prayer had any effect, an overall improvement would be expected. Of the six items where the prayer group did better, four of them were of borderline statistical significance and only two clearly significant. Are we to conclude that the deity is only concerned with reducing antibiotic use and ventilating patients in the CCU? This study provides no information on the physicians involved in this study. This information could be important since certain physicians use antibiotics and intubate patients much more readily than others.
•    The method that Dr. Byrd used in his scoring in “Table 3” had not been validated by any previous studies.
•    When Irwin Tessman, Ph.D., professor of biological sciences at Perdue University, requested of Dr. Byrd that Dr. Tessman be allowed to review the raw data that went into the study, he was refused. Since Dr. Byrd’s claim is one of the supernatural, it would seem appropriate that all aspects of the study be reviewed by independent investigators.
•    The degree of obvious religiosity communicated by Dr. Byrd raises doubts that he could be completely objective on a scientific investigation of prayer, something that he deeply believes is effective. Under “Acknowledgments” at the end of the paper, he writes: “ … and Mrs. Janet Greene for her dedication to this study. In addition, I thank God for responding to the many prayers made on behalf of the patients.”

[continued in Part 2]

Related posts:

1. Scientific Conclusion: Prayer Doesn’t Work – Part 2
2. Scientific Evidence on Homosexuality
3. Are Religion and Science Reconciling?

No related posts.

I attended church for years in multiple places. I asked many questions which were never answered. Indeed, it seemed that no one that I knew had ever asked themselves the questions that plagued me.

One day I was in Sunday School in a Methodist church which I had been attending for several months. The teacher was an optometrist in the area. The class members were all college graduates. So, it was a well educated group. The discussion on that Sunday was about God being in control of everything. I brought up the fact that it bothered me that there are millions of people in Africa, Asia, South America, and elsewhere in the world who are dying or barely surviving because of hunger and disease.

The teacher said in a concerned manner that it seemed like I was saying that God is unfair. (How could I do such a thing?) I told him that I was bringing up this problem in the hopes that there is a sensible reason that such an enormous amount of hunger and poverty exists even though God is in control. He asked me what my basis was for thinking these conditions actually existed. This question was as shocking to me as if he had asked me what made me think that cancer existed. After a pause I said, “From multiple sources: magazines, newspapers, televisions, even through church mission drives.”

Then, this worthy man of God turned to the other members of the class and said, “Have any of you folks seen proof that such conditions exist?” There was another long pause. Finally after what seemed like an hour, a lady said, “Yes, there are such conditions. I am a nurse and I have seen a lot of evidence of these conditions in my studies and my work.” No one else said anything. The class ended then without further comment and everybody left. I never heard anything more about it, neither from the teacher nor from the members of the class.

Even a massive disaster does not seem to tickle the brain cells of many Christians. When horrible tragedies happen which make rational people at least question whether there is a personal God protecting us, many true believers respond with neither pity nor doubt. I think some people simply don’t want to discuss the topic, either because of shyness or insecurity. Many, however, see no inconsistency between the tragic loss of thousands of innocent lives and their belief that God is in complete control.

When the AIDS epidemic was at its peak, one of the members of the same Sunday School class remarked to me that AIDS was God’s punishment for the victims’ sins. The horrible pain that victims of AIDS suffer aroused no sympathy in him. Neither did the fact there were many babies who were victims of this dreadful disease.

On another Sunday a woman announced in class that she could not understand why people felt so sorry for the Jews. She said, “After all, they killed Christ.” Except for me, no one responded to her idiotic comment.

This extreme callousness, if we think about it, is exactly what one would expect of true believers in a religion in which the culmination of all of history is Armaggeden, which will, in the minds of the faithful, result in the brutal murder of everyone on earth, except for the relatively few “chosen.” Afterword, those murdered, though dead, will be thrown into the pit of fire to suffer forever. Far from being saddened by their belief in such a bleak future for mankind, this stellar event in their eyes is looked forward to with joyous anticipation.

This brings to mind the title of the old Fifth Dimension song, “Sweet Blindness.” Many Christians will use any number of rationalizations to justify their false sense of security. Believers either deny the existence of unfairness in this world or rationalize it in a variety of different ways. “It is the wages of sin.” “It’s God’s will.” “God will make all things right in the end.” “She will be a better person because of it.” The believer can then go blithely on with his or her life undisturbed by the most horrific events. The faithful are also relieved, at least in their minds, from any responsibility to do anything to prevent otherwise preventable mass suffering. The belief that God is in control of all things at all times and that those who are chosen will enjoy eternal bliss in heaven compels the faithful to focus on the hereafter rather than on real life suffering that is occurring today and urgently needs attention.

Related posts:

1. More Than I Can Bear

For those that send out those sappy Regina Brett style, life-affirming, Jesus-loving, emails which are full of the “wisest things they’ve learned in life,” most of which aren’t very accurate but sound warm and gooey, like: “It’s OK to get angry with God. He can take it,” here are some of the things I’ve learned in my life:

1. The reason God doesn’t “mind” you getting angry with him is because he’s not really there,
2. (nor is Piglet, the Tooth Fairy – or the Loch Ness Monster.)
3. Humans are so selfish, they will never do what’s right, so long as they can benefit individually by doing what’s not right.
4. Nearly all the problems on our planet could be mitigated by a reduction in the human population.
5. Half the people who read that have no idea what “mitigated” means. (But they sure know how to have more babies – fuck yeah!) — Props to China.
6. Gay people are actually doing the planet a significant favor by not breeding. Heterosexuality is the true threat to the future of mankind.
7. Trying to prevent the recognition of gay relationships is an ideological battle, rooted in religion, that has already been lost (as was the battle against slavery and granting women the vote).
8. All religious battles are eventually lost.
9. When humans finally stop living fear-based lives based on medieval beliefs about what they think their gods are trying to tell them, everyone’s lives will improve.
10. Our planet will be destroyed when the sun eventually explodes. There is no Jesus in that equation.
11. Meanwhile we are doing our best to beat the sun to it – and we will probably succeed.

Send this to anyone with a brain – or your God will be very, very upset. And we can’t have that.

Courtesy of: Stop The World, I Wanna Get Off!

Related posts:

1. Life Just Is…And So Is Death!

In September of this year, I will have been practicing law in Orlando for twenty years. In the course of my career, I have gone from being single with no kids to married with two, from prosecuting to defending criminals, and from belief to unbelief. One consistent thread that runs throughout is my dealing with the believing public.

Other than physical illness, legal problems are for many the worst ordeal of their lives, especially in the criminal arena. I’ve represented people who were on the brink of ultimate disaster, watching their lives unravel, their dreams dashed and their future sink away into oblivion. Many waited for months in the county jail to hear their fate. Overcrowded, poorly fed and under constant stress, most could not stand to look the devil in the eye until the last possible minute, sometimes with the jury standing just outside the courtroom door.

Many relied on their faith to get them through. Some concluded that they had to pay for their sins and were willing to accept their punishment. But many more believed that their saviour would come through in the end and pull them from the fire. Clutching their Bible in their shackled hands like a lucky rabbit’s foot, they would confidently step off the cliff.

That frequently left me in the position of having to figure out how to get irrational people to make rational decisions. Despite what most people think, criminal defense lawyers are not usually focused on the very unrealistic goal of getting their clients off completely. The vast majority of the time, we are concerned with battling excessive charges and getting a fair sentence for the crime the client actually committed. Once we can get the case fairly charged and a reasonable sentence recommended, it becomes our task to convince the client to accept it and avoid the risk of trial and a greatly enhanced sentence. Having to overcome superstitious beliefs makes that task much harder.

I grew up a churchgoer and have studied the Bible extensively. I largely credit being a lawyer with training me to think rationally and value evidence. But my training in scriptures has aided me many times in getting clients to make the right decision within their own religious framework. Maybe I’m copping out, but I just can’t bring myself to challenge people’s religious beliefs when they are incarcerated and it’s the only thing holding them together.

What I tell people, and I’m talking only about Christians, is that their faith does not promise them material success in this world, but in the next. All the Apostles and many thousands more Christians in the first century C.E. were tortured and murdered for their faith. I tell them they cannot expect to avoid their fate on earth if even the Apostles were not spared. They don’t like the argument, but they have no response for it. Usually it works.

It feels hypocritical sometimes. It does not, however, feel as bad as failing to convince someone to make the right choice and watching as they dash themselves upon the rocks.

No related posts.

“Hello” was the response on the other end of my newly initiated phone call.

I knew this voice instantly, from the hundreds of times I’ve heard it on television, podcasts, and YouTube videos. I was shocked that it could be he who answered the phone and believed I might be wrong. “Yes, um, we are vacationing in the area and wanted to visit the Foundation.  Is tomorrow ok?”

The strong but comfortably aged voice, with a hint of Canadian accent replied “Yes, tomorrow will be fine.”

I then was convinced I was right and ventured, “This sounds like Mr. Randi.”

“Probably because it is” he said.

“I am just surprised you’re there” was my feeble reply.

“Well I had to be somewhere.”

I felt him smiling at me.

My impression is that this is Randi in a nutshell. Like that phone call from a complete stranger, he is at once self assured, reassuring, strong, wizened, comforting, bold, and honest. So multi-faceted but then so simple in his approach to everything, which is direct honesty. This is a characteristic of magicians and why they seem to be so confoundedly different from the rest of us. I would never conceive of being honest while trying to deceive people. This of course is the defining difference between say a magician and a psychic, the archetypical examples being James “The Amazing” Randi and Yuri Gellar.  Magicians say, “I am about to trick you.” Psychics don’t tell you.

We arrived at the small Mediterranean style building, which looked to be converted from a house into a business office. Sean, a James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) employee met us at the door and welcomed us in. He led us into the Isaac Asimov Library, showed us some of the interesting artifacts, about 2,000 books (including strange and stupid tomes of the Church of Scientology), and shared personal stories about his time at the JREF. He then excused himself to “tell Mr. Randi he had guests.” I figured Randi would come in quickly, exchange pleasantries and be off on some of the many projects he seems to always be leading. I was wrong, we were generously graced with an audience for the next 3 ½ hours by the “Amazing One” himself.

We were guided and educated through the wonderful world of skepticism, including an explanation and expose of an original Scientology E-meter. The device looked like a cigar box with important looking controls and a needle that supposedly measures resistance. Inputs on the side of the box allowed connected wires which instead of plugging into the handles were simply knotted and slipped through holes cut into the tops of the handles, originally empty, painted tomato cans. We were regaled with tales of Randi’s past victories over Geller, Kreskin and Popoff. We were a captivated audience as we learned about the origins of the JREF, its original benefactor, and James Randi’s second career, as well as anecdotes about his famous friends. With open elation he told us of his tour with Alice Cooper, his admiration for Martin Gardner, and his friendship with and mutual respect of Johnny Carson. We were informed of projects like TAM7 (The Amazing Meeting) and the new TAM UK in the works with the likes of Penn & Teller, Richard Saunders, Ben Goldacre, Phil Plait and the Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe crew among other notables.

We finished this extraordinary visit with the performance of a “minor miracle” – an incredible magic trick Randi said would amaze us, and we still are. I came away from my afternoon at the JREF with a renewed sense of wonderment, a higher level of admiration, and the feeling that the skeptical movement is being steered by very wise and still capable hands. Randi’s humor, intellect and generosity are unparalleled.

I encourage you to make the trip to Ft. Lauderdale to visit the JREF for yourself. Randi invites all to attend the open skeptics meeting held there the last Wednesday of every month. Immediately after reading this post, leave a comment, check out and support the JREF, and get to TAM as soon as you can.

Related posts:

1. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 1
2. The Skeptrack Experience at DragonCon – Part 2
3. Education is Not Just for Kids