The Christian Science Monitor is a well regarded news service. Despite the name, they have a solid reputation for quality journalism, and usually do a pretty good job.

This month, they are reporting on the on non-results of yet another ’study’ into the efficacy of prayer as a medical tool.

Unsurprisingly, the article points out that:

The Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP), published online March 30 by the American Heart Journal, showed no positive effect from the use of third-party intercessory prayer on behalf of patients undergoing a specific type of heart surgery at six medical centers around the United States when compared with a control group who were not prayed for as part of the study.

Another unexpected result: Patients who knew they were being prayed for had somewhat more medical complications than another group who also had received prayer but were uncertain as to whether they had or not.

The beginning of that second paragraph gets to me a little: “Another unexpected result…”

What, the hopes of medical science were dashed by the fact that it appears that Benny Hinn is wasting his time each morning?

Well, some medical scientists apparently have had their hopes dashed. The ‘expert’ quoted in this story, for one.

Dr Harold Koenig is “an associate professor of medicine and co-director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology, and Health at Duke University’s Medical Center.”

I don’t know much about Dr Koenig, nor about Duke University. They are, conceivably, both well respected within the medical field. But I really can’t see why any medical school would have a need for a Centre for Spirituality and Theology.

I do, however, know a load of specious crap when I see it, and the CSM has printed a bunch of it in this article.

Starting with:

But the study itself is unlikely to satisfy those who question whether the effects of prayer can be measured using conventional scientific testing. They ask: How do you define what constitutes a prayer? Are all forms of prayer equally effective? How do you design a “dose” of prayer that is the same for each patient? And how do you rule out the effects of the patients’ own prayers or prayers from others not involved in the study on behalf of the patient?

Sure, so, a study finds no significant positive benefit from intercessory prayer and the question it really opens up is “Are we using the right kind of prayer?”

Rather than “Why are we wasting research money on this shit?”

Even their expert agrees:

For some involved in exploring the issues of spirituality and health, the new study only confirms their reservations.

“Scientific studies are just not capable of showing that prayer works,” says Dr. Harold Koenig.

Too fucking true, if prayer doesn’t work, which is what the study seems to show…

Medical science may, or may not, be able to give definitive answers on the existence of God. It has, however, developed a pretty good track record on assessing the relative efficacy of treatment options.

It may be difficult to discern the workings of Jesus in the mix, but it ain’t that hard to measure whether the patients get better or not - or, in this case, suffer additional complications.

Actually, amusingly enough, they did find one effect of prayer on recovery -

Results were measured in terms of the number of medical complications encountered by each patient after surgery. Just over half of the patients in the study reported postsurgery complications. To the researchers’ surprise, the highest percentage (59 percent) was recorded among those who were told they were being prayed for.

The researchers said they were unable to explain that outcome. “The role of awareness [of prayer] needs careful further study,” said Dr. Charles Bethea, a cardiologist and one of the study’s coauthors. The authors speculate that knowledge of being prayed for “might have introduced performance anxiety or made them feel doubtful about their outcome,” Dr. Bethea says. “Did the patient think, ‘Am I so sick that they had to call in the prayer team?’ “

Or even, “Why did I pick a medical team who believes in this shit, and what, by the way, is that bucket of leeches doing next to the anaesthetist?”

Of course, the measure of any study is in the methodology.

In this case, to my inexpert eye, the study seems to be relatively well designed - double blind structure, control groups, independent assessment, Catholic monks - all the good stuff.

And, I’m sure we’re all aware that one study does not a body of scientific evidence make - so this study doesn’t have much meaning outside of the broader body of work.

And Lo! a Foundation steps into the breach:

The Office of Prayer Research, sponsored by the Association of Unity Churches in Lee’s Summit, Mo., has collected some 400 scientific studies on the subject of prayer and healing. About 75 percent show prayer having a positive impact on health, says Bob Barth, director of the office. “It’s so easy to jump to conclusions that prayer doesn’t work,” he says.

Undeterred, unfortunately, by the evidence that many of these studies are fraudulent crap, Bob Barth is calling for more research:

But rather than placing too much emphasis on any one clinical trial, he says, STEP should open up “so many more areas where research should be done,” such as a study comparing the effects of people using a standardized prayer vs. people using their own prayers.

Or we could, perhaps, design a trial which compares the health benefits of the Modern Common Liturgy as opposed to hacking away at the throat of a hand-reared goat.

Seriously folks - this is pointless science and bad journalism.

If I get sick, and it makes you feel better to pray - by all means pray.

Just don’t be surprised if it doesn’t make me feel better as well.