Yesterday's Science Times carried a small piece on "alternative" therapies for heart patients. A study tested the efficacy of prayer (from a distance), bedside music, imagery, and MIT therapy (a touching therapy). Tested not only Christian prayers, but Buddhist and Muslim prayers as well. Sorry, no effect. Prayer, once again, is shown not to be effective. Why does it keep being tested? How could prayer possibly work? Who funds this sort of stuff? Will we next get studies on curses, hexes, and sacrifices?
Notwithstanding the absence of any demonstrable effect, the lead researcher says the results did not mean prayer failed. (No effect does not mean failure? What would show prayer failed?) No, for him, "the most important point may be that this is an exploration coming the mainstream." Wait wait, more: "We definitely think there are important reasons to believe that what a community does at a distance or what a loved one does at the bedside prior to a procedure may belong in the systemic armamentarium of high-tech medical care." Oh, I see, the doctor (Krucoff) thinks there are good reasons (which he is keeping to himself) to believe stuff for which he not only has no evidence supporting but does have evidence falsifying. His own study shows that remote community activities do not affect procedure outcome (surgery) but there are still "good reasons" to believe otherwise. This is nonsense.
Oh, the only therapy tested which had a noticeable effect was the MIT therapy. Patients were shown to have less emotional distress before surgery and a slightly lower mortality rate six months later. Of course, you may recall reports from a about a year ago about a high school student who did a lovely double blind study on touching therapy and found it had no effect at all. She received a Westinghouse award as I recall.
Recent Comments