Evidence for Healing at a Distance

Quote:

Originally Posted by annnnoid (Post 11148399) There’s lots of evidence. You just pretend it’s not evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MuDPhuD (Post 11149977) Can you elaborate on that evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by annnnoid (Post 11151908) An abbreviated list of some of the evidence: Healing at a Distance Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP> Edited for rule 4. List of citations are here - http://ift.tt/1fIDBUy

This thread arises from another, where evidence was offered regarding existence of non-local effects of the brain and its activity (thought).
I limit myself here to the first heading of the reference list, healing at a distance. I have reviewed the various references provided and come to the following conclusions, which are in fact well supported by the evidence:
1. There is good evidence regarding the effectiveness of healing at a distance, and
2. The evidence suggests that attempts at distant healing have NO EFFECT.

From the list provided in the quote above:

Astin et al (2000). The Efficacy of “Distant Healing”: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials
"we concur with the summary conclusion of the Cochrane Collaboration’s review of prayer studies that the evidence thus far warrants further study", meaning that 16 years ago there was insufficient evidence to make a conclusion regarding the effectiveness of prayer.

Krucoff et al (2001). Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot
and
Krucoff et al (2005). Music, imagery, touch, and prayer as adjuncts to interventional cardiac care: the Monitoring and Actualisation of Noetic Trainings (MANTRA) II randomised study

"No significant difference was found for the primary composite endpoint in any
treatment comparison."

Benson et al (2006). Study of the therapeutic effects of intercessory prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients
"Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG"

Masters & Spielmans (2007). Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda
"The updated findings continue to support our conclusion that there is no scientifically discernable effect for distant intercessory prayer on health"

Schlitz et al (2012). Distant healing of surgical wounds: An exploratory study.

From the results section:
"Collagen deposition. There was no significant difference in
mean collagen deposition among the three groups (F(2,62)
.79, P .46, see Figure 2).
Subjective measures. There were no mean changes in mood
among the 3 groups (F[2, 48] 2.54, P .09, Figure 3). There
were also no significant mean differences in the SF-36 PCS
(physical composite) scores (F[2, 56] 2.08, P .13, see Figure
4) or the SF-36 MCS (mental composite) scores (F[2, 56] 2.41,
P .10)"
In other words, no change in healing.

I pulled these out of chronologic order:
Radin et al (2004). Possible effects of healing intention on cell cultures and truly random events.
and
Radin et al (2008). Compassionate intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the patients’ autonomic nervous system
These are not studying healing.

Leibovici (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial

This is a very interesting study. In the year 2000 (4-10 years AFTER patient discharge), 3393 bacteremia patient charts were pulled and randomly separated into two piles. A coin was tossed. Names of the 1691 patients in the "winning" pile were given to a person who said a short prayer for the group as a whole. Lo and Behold, the two piles were miraculously statistically different in mortality(P=0.4), length of stay(P=.01), and duration of fever(P=.04)!! The authors conclude that the short prayer altered the past! I'll wait for the replication of this one before throwing my hat in the ring, althuogh it would be great if I could organize a prayer group so I won't need that surgery I had last year!

http://ift.tt/1qqopQX
This is a reasonable review, and meta analysis, not on the linked list. It has a nice discussion of the various studies. The conclusion is flawed because the author includes flawed studies in his analysis.

The author marks a number of studies "ns, but trends towards.." which irritates me to no end. If the statistics say "not different" then any trend you think you see is meaningless. He includes 17 studies, only 6 show some effect. One of those is the Leibovici study I discussed above, and another is the highly controversial Cha, Wirth and Lobo study. Three others provide conflicting results when using similar designs; Some find shorter stays with no change in complications, while another finds fewer complications but no change in stay. This kind of conflict raises a red flag for me. The results are inconsistent and don't replicate.

I'm afraid the evidence as provided is clear that there is no effect of prayer on healing.
I continue to make my way down the list.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1RAxMHH