Amid a recent scandal in pseudoscientific "prayer research," Dr. Rogerio Lobo, a fertility specialist whom the paper listed as senior author, pulls his name from the paper. [1].
The gist of the study was this: women who undergo invitro fertilization could double their chances of pregnancy by having someone pray for them [2]. Just the idea that this is the study itself raises all sorts of scientific and philosophical questions. How does one establish a control group? Is a prayer-proof room employed? Are some of the women hell-bound atheists, for whom prayer will do no good? Do gods (or a god) really prefer to take part in studies?
One of the co-authors of the paper, Daniel Wirth, was involved in a scam that netted him $1.2 million in fraud money... he pled guilty when caught. [3]. His degree isn't even legitimate, its in "parapsychology." Bruce Flamm, an MD with a real degree, has been quite critical of Wirth, et al, and has exposed the pseudoscience of their paper quite efficiently. Flamm's work is worth the look for anyone curious about how peer review is supposed to operate [4].
In their study, Cha, Wirth, and Lobo state "we set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of intercessory prayer." Flamm points out that this would seem highly unlikely for a simple reason: many studies have been conducted in the past that did, in fact, conclude that prayer does not have an effect on unknowing receivers. Why then, Flamm asks, would these researchers want to want to conduct a large, international study only to add to a list of negative studies?
This is classic pseudoscientific baloney! The so-called researcher sets out with a pre-conceived theory and looks for evidence that will support that theory, regardless of the flaws in methodology. These flaws are ignored or justified so the so-called researcher can only see the positive results.
And the kicker: The Journal of Reproductive Medicine stated that "the journal's review of the paper had found no serious problems and that it would be reposted on the journal's Web site." Without Lobo's name.
1. Carey, Benedict (12/4/04). Researcher Pulls His Name From Paper on Prayer and Fertility New York Times Section:Science
2. Cha KY, Wirth DP, Lobo RA. (2001). Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46:781-787.
3.QuackWatch (2004). Fourth superseding indictment. U.S.A. v. John Doe (FBI No. 034055NA9) and Joseph Wirth. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Filed Feb 12, 2004.
4.Flamm, Bruce L. (2004). Faith Healing by Prayer:
Review of a Questionable Study Quackwatch.org.
The gist of the study was this: women who undergo invitro fertilization could double their chances of pregnancy by having someone pray for them [2]. Just the idea that this is the study itself raises all sorts of scientific and philosophical questions. How does one establish a control group? Is a prayer-proof room employed? Are some of the women hell-bound atheists, for whom prayer will do no good? Do gods (or a god) really prefer to take part in studies?
One of the co-authors of the paper, Daniel Wirth, was involved in a scam that netted him $1.2 million in fraud money... he pled guilty when caught. [3]. His degree isn't even legitimate, its in "parapsychology." Bruce Flamm, an MD with a real degree, has been quite critical of Wirth, et al, and has exposed the pseudoscience of their paper quite efficiently. Flamm's work is worth the look for anyone curious about how peer review is supposed to operate [4].
In their study, Cha, Wirth, and Lobo state "we set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of intercessory prayer." Flamm points out that this would seem highly unlikely for a simple reason: many studies have been conducted in the past that did, in fact, conclude that prayer does not have an effect on unknowing receivers. Why then, Flamm asks, would these researchers want to want to conduct a large, international study only to add to a list of negative studies?
This is classic pseudoscientific baloney! The so-called researcher sets out with a pre-conceived theory and looks for evidence that will support that theory, regardless of the flaws in methodology. These flaws are ignored or justified so the so-called researcher can only see the positive results.
And the kicker: The Journal of Reproductive Medicine stated that "the journal's review of the paper had found no serious problems and that it would be reposted on the journal's Web site." Without Lobo's name.
1. Carey, Benedict (12/4/04). Researcher Pulls His Name From Paper on Prayer and Fertility New York Times Section:Science
2. Cha KY, Wirth DP, Lobo RA. (2001). Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Journal of Reproductive Medicine 46:781-787.
3.QuackWatch (2004). Fourth superseding indictment. U.S.A. v. John Doe (FBI No. 034055NA9) and Joseph Wirth. U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Filed Feb 12, 2004.
4.Flamm, Bruce L. (2004). Faith Healing by Prayer:
Review of a Questionable Study Quackwatch.org.