A meta-study isn't a physical research project; it is essentially a review of numerous research studies on a particular topic.

Therefore a meta-study is only as reliable as the research studies it summarizes.

There has NEVER been a study that passes scientific muster (randomized/placebo-controlled/double-blind) which showed any healing effect of prayer.

There have been studies that claimed to do so, even one posted for two years on Columbia University's website. However, they have been proven to be FRAUDULENT studies. That is, the authors LIED. The authors now are in jail, dead, or under investigation.

So a meta-study that says "a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer" found a "positive effect" is completely false, if those 17 studies were false.

and they were.

my girl crazy, man!

I reviewed the science of prayer science at
www.scrolling.blogs.com/drmetablog/2006/04/prayer_science.html

Better watch out guys! The super Christians scientists are going to prove god's real any day now. Repent or fail your biology class!

Suppose, hypothetically, that there were a positive effect resulting from prayer. This is just as likely prove that some of the people doing the praying have some kind of telekinetic healing power as it is to prove the intercession of a responsive God. A test of this would be to have prayers offered to incompatible Gods, one group to Allah, another to Jesus, another to Buddha, another to Zeus maybe, perhaps even prayers to the inactive God underlying Deism and Pandeism. Have the subjects of these prayers equally dispersed among Christians, Muslims, Pandeists, Deists, Buddhists, ...um... Zeusists? See if Muslims heal faster when Allah is prayed to for them (or if they are led to believe that prayers to Allah are made to them). See if Pandeists have any response when they think the inactive fabric of the Universe that underscores Pandeism is prayed to (not likely).

Actually, that would be an interesting experiment as well -- just tell people they're being prayed for and see if those receiving the prayers react differently from those misled to believe they are receiving the prayers!

I went to a lot of trouble to look at that meta-analysis on the effects of prayer. The included studies were either poorly done, not blinded let alone double blinded, sample sizes of 10 give or take a few, claimed conclusions not supported by the evidence, and there was self selected bias in the meta-analysis not addressed. You can read the specific issues in this thread, Meta-Analysis Indicates Prayer Effective, on the JREF forum.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77095&highlight=answers+prayers

The thread is short and includes very specific criticisms of each study included in the meta-analysis. Needless to say, it's unfortunate such a poorly done analysis was included in a peer reviewed publication. The authors apparently made no effort to include only valid studies and/or conclusions. Even if any of the studies had revealed true positive results, the reviewers missed the most obvious, science 101, glaring error. If you do the end math and you have 10 studies with no effect and 1 study with an effect, what will your analysis show? A positive effect! They counted "no effect" as zero rather than a negative number.

Here we have more fodder for the cannons of the wishful thinkers who prefer fake/bad science which supports their beliefs rather than looking at what the evidence actually shows. And naturally, a review of this meta-analysis which is critical of it is tagged with the usual false premise, science has a bias against religion.

No, science isn't biased against religion, it is biased against bad science.

Why not just skip the Office Visit? Stay home and stay on your knees. Who needs science when you have the gods?

So when religious believers publish results, they're biased; but when non-believers do, they're not?

The physicians, nurses and therapists in my area work with me in a partnership for healing. They do not fear my intercessory prayer for patients any more than I fear surgical and/or medicinal intervention. I continue to marvel at the potential of modern medicine, while marvelling at God's handiwork as He answers fervent effective prayers.

Meta studies are notorious for being used to put a spin on data. Check the original studies. Look up Meta Studies and how they are used. Mr. Hodge is also a bit biased as he is published by "North American Association of Christians in Social Work" www.nacsw.org This is a "Science" blog, right?

"To the man who himself strives earnestly, God also lends a helping hand. "
Aeschylus

When the first study ,that was ran and funded by Christians no less, proved that prayer had ZERO effect on changing outcomes (wich should come as no suprise to those of us with common sense ) they had to rig another one to get the answer they wanted. Once again here we have a case of manipulating the science to get the desired answer (in wich case it is NOT science at all). This kind of crap infuriates me because the media wil run the story with the type of sensationalist headline like the one in the above article, and the moronic geberal public will eat it up as proof that their imaginary god exists and actually listens to them. The above "study" is just more ill-constructed psuedo-science.

Did the patients know they were being prayed for? Were the patients being prayed for by close family and friends, or a random group of people to which they had no association? I think these are all important questions. If no one prayed for an individual in the non-prayer group because s/he was an atheist with atheist friends, perhaps they felt more stressed as their condition was out of their hands and up to chance and medicine alone. The stress thus causing a negative health impact.

My automatic reaction to this is to try and pic holes in the methods those social scientists used to aquire this sort of 'scientificaly hereditary' result, quite right: pacebo effect; predisposition and so on.
The correct way to aproach this would be to say we are observing an effect, an effect which stems from people concentrating hard on a particular issue that they really really want to happen, accessing some part of their mind where they bring themselves into the state when they are being completely honest with some sort of imaginary 'fatherly' figure with whom there is no secrects; repent the 'bad things', ask for the good thing(s) and, it seems, things go better than if you would not have done nothing at all.
I don't know about you but from where I come from I would bemaybe the second generation that does not believe in 'supernatural being(s)', following a good few tens of thousands that did. to think that we do not carry some sort biologicaly (or whatever) inherited legacy is foolish.
There are countless examples why beleif in the 'supernatural' would have been useful for our susvival in the past and the evolution of inteligence in humans.
It is as simple as that: we have religiuos practices and beleifs because they were useful for our survival, we've inherited it. My whole point is what is that It? How is it that we can tap into sort of grid with our minds just by thinking in a particular way and influece outcomes? Is it some sort of group system of survival that we are calling God because that is the only way we can tap into it?
Any thoughts?

Dov Henis
I suggest that psychology schmycology, HU or ASU, meta- or BS- study, this kind of politically-correct non-subversive pseudosophisticated-BS verbiage and attitude re an obvious matter of psychiatry is another consequence of the mentality/stand represented and apostled by the AAAS, the American Association for AntiScientism.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-P81pQcU1dLBbHgtjQjxG_Q--?cq=1&p=286

I don't see no world peace. HIV is still with us, etc. etc. Given the medical context, I wonder how much the placebo effect comes into sway?

This was a lousy story because it gave no data or support for the title.