Prayer still useless

Why do they bother? Yet another group has performed a study into intercessory prayer and yet again has concluded that prayer doesn’t do anything:

Praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcomes, a US study suggests.

A study found those who were prayed for were as likely to have a setback in hospital, be re-admitted, or die within six months as those not prayed for.

Duh! Numerous other studies have replicated this same (lack of) result. Praying doesn’t change anything, or only does when subjects thought they were in the prayer group (ie it is a placebo).

I’m not saying that there aren’t studies that show prayer has an effect. There have been several such studies, but eventually they are shown to be flawed, and/or when the controls are tightened the effect disappears, and/or they have been shown to be fraudulent. I give three examples below.

Byrd

One of the most frequently quoted “successful” studies was by Randolph Byrd of the San Francisco General Medical Center:

To evaluate the effects of IP (intercessory prayer) in a coronary care unit (CCU) population, a prospective randomized double-blind protocol was followed. Over ten months, 393 patients admitted to the CCU were randomized, after signing informed consent, to an intercessory prayer group (192 patients) or to a control group (201 patients).

[Snip]

The control patients required ventilatory assistance, antibiotics, and diuretics more frequently than patients in the IP group. These data suggest that intercessory prayer to the Judeo-Christian God has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients admitted to a CCU.

Byrd claimed that the prayer group did better than the control in six categories.

But there were severe methodological problems with this study. First, no significant differences were found among the other twenty categories being evaluated, including mortality, despite explicit prayers for prevention of death. Byrd had cherry-picked the six categories that happened to support his hypothesis and ignored the others.

Second, in looking at outcomes in those six categories that did support his conclusion, Byrd ignored the interrelationships between the categories. For example, the development of congestive heart failure automatically leads to the need for diuretics; the development of pneumonia automatically requires the use of antibiotics. Since these were not independent events he hadn’t really even reported success in six categories; three at most.

And third, there was no significant difference in length of recovery period, despite explicit prayers for a rapid recovery. This is what counts as success, apparently.

Harris / MAHI

A later study by the Mid America Heart Institute attempted to replicate Byrd, and claimed

Remote, intercessory prayer was associated with lower CCU course scores. This result suggests that prayer may be an effective adjunct to standard medical care.

However, it is clear that this study failed to replicate Byrd’s so-called positive data in the six categories in which Byrd had claimed success. Additionally, there was no significant difference between the prayer and control groups in length of CCU stay, total days hospitalized or deaths, thus, replicating Byrd's negative data. So this study can hardly be considered a success either.

Elizabeth Targ

The granddaddy of fraudulent prayer studies has to be Elizabeth Targ’s study in the Western Journal of Medicine that was funded by the National Institutes of Health's Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine to the tune of $1.5 million. This study originally showed no effect, so the experimenters un-blinded the study, data mined it for something, anything, that would show prayer was a benefit, found something, changed the study to make it appear they had been looking for those things all along, re-blinded it, then published. As Wired reported:

Targ asked him to crunch the numbers on the secondary scores - one a measure of HIV physical symptoms, the other a measure of quality of life. These came out inconclusive; the treatment group didn't score better than the control. Not what they wanted to find. In dismay, Targ called her father. He calmed her down, told her to keep looking. She had Moore run the mood state scores. These came out worse - the treatment group was in more psychological stress than the control group. Same for CD4+ counts. Targ flew down to Santa Fe to attend a conference at a Buddhist retreat run by her godmother. When she called back to Moore's office, Sicher answered. Moore was crunching the last data they had, hospital stays and doctor visits. "Looks like we have statistical significance!" Moore announced. Sicher told Targ, who turned and yelled out to her friends and the conference.

Bingo.

Later that week, Moore met with an AIDS physician at California Pacific Medical Center. This doctor thought distant healing was bogus but agreed to give advice. He remarked that the length of hospital stays wasn't very meaningful. Patients with health insurance tend to stay in hospitals longer than uninsured ones. He pointed Moore to an important AIDS paper that had been recently published. It defined the 23 illnesses associated with AIDS. He told Moore they ought to have been measuring the occurrence of these illnesses all along. Moore took this list to Targ and Sicher. There was only one problem. They hadn't collected this data.

They gathered the medical charts and gave them to their assistant to black out the names of the patients. This done, Targ and Sicher began poring over the charts again, noting the data they hadn't previously collected. Since Sicher had interviewed many of these patients (up to three times), Moore worried Sicher could recognize them just by the dates they came to the hospital and what they were treated for. Sicher admitted he could (there were only 40). He had also seen which group each patient was assigned to, treatment or control, but he swore he didn't remember and maintained he was therefore impartial. (Sicher remembers this differently. He insists he couldn't recognize the patients from their charts and never knew which group each was in.) Targ told her boyfriend she was worried about Sicher's impartiality, but she took him at his word, even though Sicher was an ardent believer in distant healing, by his own frequent admission. He had put up the money himself for the pilot study ($7,500), had paid for the blood tests. He had a vested interest in the outcome.

This isn't what science means by double-blind. The data may all be legitimate, but it's not good form. Statisticians call this the sharpshooter's fallacy - spraying bullets randomly, then drawing a target circle around a cluster. When Targ and Sicher wrote the paper that made her famous, they let the reader assume that all along their study had been designed to measure the 23 AIDS-related illnesses - even though they're careful never to say so. They never mentioned that this was the last in a long list of endpoints they looked at, or that it was data collected after an unblinding.

(My bold.)

And that really is the best there is. Isn’t it about time we recognized that getting down on your knees and muttering platitudes to the invisible daddy in the sky doesn’t change anything, and stopped wasting time and money on these ridiculous studies? If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who tell him how wonderful and powerful he is and who go on to ask for medical favors.

Comments

[VKW]

Francis Galton, Darwin's cousin, did a study of the longevity of the Royal Family compared to aristocrats who were much less likely to have churchgoers urged to pray for their health. Results? Same as the above. Apparently, people like the idea of prayer working for health at least as much as the idea of psychic powers. Results supporting the null hypothesis are simply ignored.

[fred]

That's what their unawareness.when ignorance is bliss then its folly to be wise.

[leena]

think the people like the idea of prayer working for health at least as much as the idea of psychic powers.

[BronzeDog]

And, of course, how much people like the idea doesn't affect its validity. :)

[Big Al]

The whole concept of prayer puzzles me. The Supreme Being (SB) is itching to help you, but won't do so until you ask him. Your prayer probably ends "if it be Thy will" - well, if it's the Almighty One's will, why does he have to wait for you, a mere mortal, to give him permission?

And this whole business of praying to saints leaves me cold. Now, your personal request to the SB won't get through - the poor chap's obviously rushed off his feet. However, you can ask a saint to put a good word in for you with the Old Man. Mind you, not just any old saint - it has to be the right one for the problem at hand.

I just wonder; who are the patron saints for:

Car breakdowns in the middle of nowhere
No mobile phone reception when you're waiting for an urgent call
Internet connection problems ditto

Or is there a "Directory Enquiries" saint you can contact to ask for a sign showing who is the right saint to ask to ask SB to restore my cellphone signal? Or can he just text me?

[BronzeDog]

Another point: Once started a thread in the humor section of the JREF forums that didn't take off. It was something like "The Ups and Downs of Being a Deity".

Down: You go through all the trouble of making a Divine Plan, using your infinite wisdom, and then some mortal clasps his hands together and asks you to change it.

[Big Al]

LOL! Still, the way I see it, it's:

"Here I am with this Divine Plan in its infinite and subtle detail, but I can't carry any part of it out until some mortal puts his hands together and asks me to. If you ask me, this omnipotence isn't all it's cracked up to be!"

[kewenay]

Completely disagree with you, Skeptico. Prayer has a huge amount of power, provided you believe it does. If you don't believe it does, then it doesn't. Simple. Clearly it does nothing for you.
But people who believe in God and believe he's there to help them find a lot of solace in prayer. And why shouldn't they? Each to his own as they say. And you don't think prayer has any practical results? Of course it does. If someone believes in the power of prayer, and they pray, they'll feel better about themselves. They'll probably feel happier and more confident and better able to deal with whatever life's throwing at them. And a confident and happy person can get better results than a confused or depressed one.
Now before you start thinking I'm a bible-bashing evangelical, I'm not. I don't go to church and I believe that if god exists he's just a law of nature (albeit the ultimate one), and that it won't make the blindest bit of difference to me whether I pray to it or not.
But if other people believe something different, hell, let them, if they feel it does them some good!

[Skeptico]

Kewenay:

Reality is the thing that stays the same when you stop believing in it.

[Big Al]

What happens if one person prays that it rains while another prays it doesn't? Does the rain fall a way and then hover over the ground?

I also have serious problems with this idea that if enough people pray for something, it'll happen. I'm willing to bet that myriads of pious Christians are praying that something awful happens to Osama Bin Laden while countless devout Muslims are praying the same thing happens to George Bush.

Poor old God must be really confused - unless one outcome or the other really is "His will". In which case, why does He need a critical mass of prayer before he can do it? This omnipotent, immortal creator of the Universe in six days needs your permission to kill a few microbes to save a child?

The whole concept of "if enough people pray for it, it will happen" seems to cut God out of the loop altogether: it's the wish alone that makes it happen (as long as there are enough wishers).

I believe "the ability to bring about change in accordance with one's will" is a standard definition of _magic_. The practitioners of magic are sometimes called witches. Doesn't the Old Testament have something about "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?

Both my parents (no longer churchgoers) have said about Apollo 13 that with so many people praying for the astronauts, they couldn't help but get back. I think that's quite an insult to the dedicated engineers and the astronauts themselves.

Oh well, at least they don't hassle me for being an atheist...

[Bronze Dog]

Both my parents (no longer churchgoers) have said about Apollo 13 that with so many people praying for the astronauts, they couldn't help but get back. I think that's quite an insult to the dedicated engineers and the astronauts themselves.

Reminds me of one of the mine rescues that was declared a miracle. Saw a rather good History Channel program that went through all the steps the very human saviors went through. Just surveying the spot to drill was an accomplishment.

But some people just aren't satisfied unless they can claim humans are incapable of wiping themselves without a supreme being to help them out.

[Joann]

Wow kewenay, NICE POST AND THE BEST POST HERE.
To all those who thinks that I am some kind of religious finatic, you are wrong. I agree with kewenay because he makes perfect sense and he nor I goes to church. But the reason I also like his post below is because I am doing some serious soul searching and am truly starting to wonder why is it that my hearts desire that I have been praying for so long for HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED. WHY?

I mean in every other aspect or at least some of the other aspects of my life, through prayer has been answered. Like regarding money problems, rent problems, tax problems, credit problems, and health problems. These problems has been answered through prayer HOWEVER THE ONE THING THAT I DESIRE OF GOD VERY MUCH IS A HUSBAND AND WHY IS IT THAT HE WILL NOT ANSWER THAT PRAYER?

I am 36 years old and still not married. So that's why I am doing some soul searching and wondering if god is even real because money isn't everything and although I guess I thank him for making me financially free through the internet, there is something missing in my life and I don't understand why he is making me suffer this way.

Almost like he don't want to see me happy or something. Oh well. I mean money is nice but without love, it's nuthing and now I find myself thinking that god is impartial or something. I don't know so that's why I am re-thinking this whole prayer thing and wondering if prayer really works or not. I mean PRAYER HAS NOT GIVEN ME A HUSBAND AS YET and I have been praying for this since 1992.

kewenay original post below:

Completely disagree with you, Skeptico. Prayer has a huge amount of power, provided you believe it does. If you don't believe it does, then it doesn't. But people who believe in God and believe he's there to help them find a lot of solace in prayer.
If someone believes in the power of prayer, and they pray, they'll feel better about themselves. They'll probably feel happier and more confident and better able to deal with whatever life's throwing at them. And a confident and happy person can get better results than a confused or depressed one.

[kewenay]

Reality is the thing that stays the same when you stop believing in it.

Good comment Skeptico, but I'm not talking about reality, I'm talking about faith. It doesn't work if you don't believe in it.

[Skeptico]

kewenay:

Yes I know. My point was it is not real.

[kewenay]

I agree - faith and prayer are not real. But that doesn't mean they're worthless or useless.

[Skeptico]

The study indicates prayer was of no use to the people receiving it.

I agree prayer makes some people feel better, but they are fooling themselves.

[kewenay]

I don't like your phrase "fooling themselves". It sounds as if you think people who pray are stupid. But they simply believe in things you don't.

[Skeptico]

What phrase would you prefer that means they have convinced themselves in the truth of something that is false?

Stupid? Not necessarily. Credulous though, for sure.

[kewenay]

No - they believe praying works and it works BECAUSE they believe in it - as I explained in my first post.

They're not convincing themselves of something that is false. It is true because they have convinced themselves. Or maybe they've just always believed it, and never even had to convince themselves.

You're making the mistake of looking at prayer objectively.

[Skeptico]

Re: They're not convincing themselves of something that is false. It is true because they have convinced themselves.

And the difference is... ?

Re: You're making the mistake of looking at prayer objectively.

“The mistake”? You are kidding, right? What other way should I be looking at this, and why?

[kewenay]

You listed all those studies in your original post and complained they were all a waste of time and money. I couldn't agree more. We will never have objective proof that prayer does or does not work, just as we will never have objective proof that God does or does not exist.

The point about prayer, God and faith is that they function in the subjective realm. Whatever an individual believes about them is right as far as that individual is concerned, by virtue of him believing it.

The application of objectivity to the matter is a waste of time.

[Skeptico]

Keweney:

I note you didn’t answer my question, what is the difference between”

They're convincing themselves of something that is false,

And

It is true because they have convinced themselves.

I suggest to you that is because there is no difference.

I never said objective studies shouldn’t have been done. I said there have been enough studies done now that it’s pretty much case closed – prayer doesn’t work. There’s no point in doing any more studies to show what we already know. I disagree with you - the objective studies show very clearly that prayer doesn’t work.

You say prayer functions “in the subjective realm”. If by subjective you mean “Existing only in the mind; illusory” – I would agree with you. As I said before, believers have convinced themselves (ie it is “existing only in the mind”) in the truth of something that is false (“illusory”). If you think that means prayer “works” on some level then I suggest by that definition anything works – voodoo, magic, astrology, tarot, reading tea-leaves, you name it – you are in freefall and will believe in absolutely anything. It’s a definition of “it works” that is meaningless. If you want to look at prayer subjectively, all you are saying is, “is there an illusory or non-existent benefit?” I would suggest there is really no point in such a study.

FWIW I agree that many believers get comfort from prayer. But it is illusory. As I said at the end of my original post:

“If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who [pray]”.

That’s about as clear as I can make it for you.

[Skeptico]

Re: The point about prayer, God and faith is that they function in the subjective realm. Whatever an individual believes about them is right as far as that individual is concerned, by virtue of him believing it.

So I guess if all those Ghanaians believe prayer works then as far as they are concerned, Ghana must have won by virtue of them believing it.

Who’s going to break it to the Brazil fans this Saturday?

[kewenay]

Regarding your question that I didn't answer, you're right - there is no difference. I'm partial to the odd tautology every now and then.

But I disagree that the objective studies show that prayer doesn't work, period. Sure it shows it doesn't work when you pray for someone in hospital, or when the Ghanaians pray for their football team. That comes as no surprise.

But another aspect of what the studies show is that the studies themselves don't work. Because something that belongs to the subjective realm cannot be quantified by an objective study.

I also agree with you that in the subjective realm anything can work. If you believe in astrology, tarot, voodoo or whatever, then yes, they can work for you. I don't see this as a meaningless definition of "it works".

Emile Coue thought autosuggestion worked. I don't see why it shouldn't, if you believe it does. (I don't, but I've never tried it.)

[Bronze Dog]

But another aspect of what the studies show is that the studies themselves don't work. Because something that belongs to the subjective realm cannot be quantified by an objective study.

It sounds like you're saying that science, which studies things that have effects, can't study things that don't have effects.

I also agree with you that in the subjective realm anything can work. If you believe in astrology, tarot, voodoo or whatever, then yes, they can work for you. I don't see this as a meaningless definition of "it works".

Maybe you should come up with a meaningful one we can use.

[Skeptico]

Kewenay:

Re: Regarding your question that I didn't answer, you're right - there is no difference. I'm partial to the odd tautology every now and then.

Thanks for that. So you do agree that they have convinced themselves in the truth of something that is false.

Re: But I disagree that the objective studies show that prayer doesn't work, period. Sure it shows it doesn't work when you pray for someone in hospital, or when the Ghanaians pray for their football team. That comes as no surprise.

Actually I don’t believe it demonstrates anything about football – that was too small a sample and with no control. (I just posted that story to highlight the absurdity of prayer in that case.) But I think the studies certainly do show that prayer doesn’t work for the things being tested – intercession in medical procedures, in this case. But as this is one of the main things people pray for, I think we are reasonably justified in concluding that prayer doesn’t work, and that further studies would be a waste of time. Of course, evidence from any future studies with positive results could be considered, although the results would have to be weighed against all the studies with negative results. More than one study, that was clearly shown to be of good quality, would need to be performed before we would change our view, backed by studies to date, that prayer doesn’t work.

Re: But another aspect of what the studies show is that the studies themselves don't work. Because something that belongs to the subjective realm cannot be quantified by an objective study.

This is really just an appeal to other ways of knowing. Objective enquiry (aka “science”) has proved to be the most reliable method we know for evaluating claims and figuring out how the universe works. If you claim there is a better method, you need to explain what it is and justify why it is better.

[Warsaw Monkey]

At the risk of promoting readers of this thread to throw their hands up in exasperation, what about in the case of spontaneous remission e.g. a cancer victim prays to be cured, believing god or whoever will intercede. This improves the positive attitude of the victim (which has been proven to have health-enhancing aspects by hundreds of studies) and the victim then recovers for no reason that can be identified other than their sheer will?

[Skeptico]

Warsaw Monkey:

Which “hundreds of studies” are you referring to? AFAIK the evidence doesn’t show that a positive attitude necessarily helps you get over cancer. For example, see this new scientist article:

A Scottish team looked at 26 studies on whether a patient's outlook affects survival. Ten of the studies examined the widely held belief that "fighting spirit" can help people live longer. Another 12 examined the opposite - whether people died sooner if their outlook was pessimistic.

Mark Petticrew's team at the Medical Research Council's Public Health Services Unit in Glasgow concluded that neither affects the final outcome (BMJ, vol 325, p 1066).

[Warsaw Monkey]

Well, there's this from the American Journal of Psychiatry for starters:

Does attitude toward psychosis relate to outcome?

TH McGlashan and WT Carpenter Jr

In a previous follow-up of recovered schizophrenic patients, it was found that a positive, integrating attitude toward illness correlated with good outcome. In similar research at NIH, the authors of this study obtained partial replication of these findings. Specifically, the less negative patients were about their illness and future, the better their outcome. A very positive attitude was not associated with good outcome. Hence, the absence of a negative attitude appears critical. The authors failed to find a relationship between integration or isolation of the psychotic experience and outcome, which suggests the incidence of this (unconscious) psychological coping style from a conscious attitude and opinion about illness and the future.

[Skeptico]

There was nothing about cancer victims in the above study. Your claim was it "has been proven" through "hundreds of studies" that "cancer victims" recover better with a positive attitude.

[Warsaw Monkey]

Check this once piece out by two oncologists.

http://www.cancersupportivecare.com/attitude.html

Also if you want to argue about absolute proofs, thaen I'm afraid in most science fields you will find almost none. Mathematical proofs, on the other hand, do offer a way to unequivocally make statements and laws that are followed in every case.

You still haven't answered my question, so maybe I will rephrase it and then you will tackle the key issue.

You say prayer is useless and i propose that it is not, using teh example of sponateous remission. e.g. a cancer victim prays to be cured, believing god or whoever will intercede. This improves the positive attitude of the victim (which many doctors recognise as having health-enhancing aspects as I have outlined above) and the victim then recovers for no reason that can be identified other than their sheer will?

Actually, to broaden it a little, if a victim simply prays, and their belief brings about a more positive attitude to their illness, be it physical or psychiatric, and hence allows them to get better or improve, then surely prayer has a purpose and is useful?

Or simply put, praying helps some people feel better. Therefore it has a purpose and is not useless.

[Skeptico]

Warsaw Monkey:

Your comment about “absolute proofs” is a straw man. I never said you needed “proof”, absolute or not, I just asked you for evidence of the “hundreds of studies” you claimed for cancer recoveries due to a positive attitude. I would suggest that these “hundreds of studies” are largely mythical. (The latest cite of yours was not a study but a paper containing mainly anecdotes.) Your scenario where the patient recovers “for no reason that can be identified other than their sheer will” is an argument from ignorance, and it also assumes a causative link between attitude and recovery – and evidence for such a link is equivocal at best. The 26 studies I cited show no connection at all.

That said, I don’t find it that extraordinary a claim that positive attitude might help in some circumstances, and I wouldn’t try to prevent sick believers from praying if it gave them some comfort. It is possible that the scenario you propose might apply in some cases, although the extent of any supposed benefit is unknown. However, there is also a danger is that sick people might turn to prayer instead of medical interventions that might actually make them well. If you are to claim the benefit you articulated you would also need to consider the detriment caused by people favoring prayer over medical procedures, to confirm the detriment does not exceed the benefit. I don’t see how anyone could do that easily, but until you do I don’t think you can really say prayer is “not useless”.

Either way, it is clear from these studies that any such supposed benefits of praying are not the result of God intervening because of prayers. As I said at the end of my original post:

“If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who [pray]”.

[Warsaw Monkey]

Oh lord, I won't be dragged into an “I can list more sources than you can” argument. This study suggests (which is all these studies can really do) that having a positive attitude can delay the ageing process and lead to a healthier life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3642356.stm

For the record, you didn't cite 26 studies, you cited one article refering to 26 studies, seeing as we're being pedantic.
In the article you quoted it says:
A Scottish team looked at 26 studies on whether a patient's outlook affects survival. Ten of the studies examined the widely held belief that "fighting spirit" can help people live longer. Another 12 examined the opposite - whether people died sooner if their outlook was pessimistic.
Mark Petticrew's team at the Medical Research Council's Public Health Services Unit in Glasgow concluded that neither affects the final outcome.
But Petticrew still urges people to stay optimistic. “There are lots of reasons to have a positive mental attitude other than survival, such as better quality of life and avoidance of anxiety and depression," he says.

So, as you agreed earlier, a positive attitude, which could include praying of that's your particulary kettle of spiritual fish, “might help in some circumstances.” This would seem to contradict your thesis that prayer is useless.

Yes, there is a danger that sick people might turn to prayer instead of medical interventions that might actually make them well. I never suggested that they do; I am merely arguing that praying can help a person's help improve through improving their attitude and benefiting their health.

Either way, it is clear from these studies that any such supposed benefits of praying are not the result of God intervening because of prayers. As I said at the end of my original post: “If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who [pray]”.
I question the purpose of your post. Are you trying to suggest that prayer is useless or that god doesn't exist? The point is not the existence of god, the point is belief. I have argued that belief can help people with illness, and help them recover. Whether they are praying to something that exists or not is irrelevant.

[Skeptico]

Re: Oh lord, I won't be dragged into an “I can list more sources than you can” argument.

Won’t be “dragged into” it? You started it. You claimed:

what about in the case of spontaneous remission e.g. a cancer victim prays to be cured, believing god or whoever will intercede. This improves the positive attitude of the victim (which has been proven to have health-enhancing aspects by hundreds of studies) and the victim then recovers…

Either back-up that claim or withdraw it.

Re: For the record, you didn't cite 26 studies, you cited one article refering to 26 studies, seeing as we're being pedantic.

I’m not being “pedantic” - you are. Nice try at misdirection though. The study was a summary of 26 studies – that’s 26 more than you had cited.

Re: I question the purpose of your post. Are you trying to suggest that prayer is useless or that god doesn't exist?

Another straw man – of course I am not saying this study proves God does not exist. What a ridiculous idea.

Of course belief can provide comfort, and may help recovery in some instances. But belief can also be a hindrance if people favor prayer over medicine that works. So perhaps it’s a wash. I don’t know and neither do you.

I was very clear in what I was suggesting this study showed:

“If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who [pray]”.

That and no more. I really can’t make it any simpler for you.

[Belathor]

Oh lord, I won't be dragged into an “I can list more sources than you can” argument.

And you weren't. Skeptico gave you a source to 26 studies that found that a patient's outlook does not affect survival.

This study suggests (which is all these studies can really do) that having a positive attitude can delay the ageing process and lead to a healthier life: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3642356.stm

This study has nothing to do with victims of any illness. All it claims is that if you have a "positive outlook", then frailty will come later in life than in those who don't. This article simply has nothing to do with what you are arguing.

For the record, you didn't cite 26 studies, you cited one article refering to 26 studies, seeing as we're being pedantic.

Above you cited an article refering to two studies. So what? The New Scientist article referenced a study that analysed 26 studies to see if a "positive outlook" affected whether a patient got better or not. The researchers found that it doesn't. This article has to do with what is being argued, unlike the BBC article above.

So, as you agreed earlier, a positive attitude, which could include praying of that's your particulary kettle of spiritual fish, “might help in some circumstances.” This would seem to contradict your thesis that prayer is useless.

These circumstances don't include times when you are physically ill.

Yes, there is a danger that sick people might turn to prayer instead of medical interventions that might actually make them well. I never suggested that they do; I am merely arguing that praying can help a person's help improve through improving their attitude and benefiting their health.

Ummm. Oh. This is not what you said you were arguing in your first post. You claimed that a positive attitude could help you get better from a serious mental illness. Not: [A positive attitude can benifit your health]. No one is arguing against that latter.

I question the purpose of your post. Are you trying to suggest that prayer is useless or that god doesn't exist?

Skeptico has made it clear repeatedly that he is not arguing for the nonexistence of God in this post.

I have argued that belief can help people with illness, and help them recover. Whether they are praying to something that exists or not is irrelevant.

Yes, but all of your arguments have so far failed to support your conclusion.

[Warsaw Monkey]

I am confused about what you are arguing, despite your best attempts to simplify it for me.

Your original post says:

"Isn’t it about time we recognized that getting down on your knees and muttering platitudes to the invisible daddy in the sky doesn’t change anything? If there is a god, he doesn’t intervene in medical procedures based on the number of people who tell him how wonderful and powerful he is and who go on to ask for medical favors."

I agree with the 'interventionist' sentiment, but not with your statement that that "prayer doesn't do anything" and "prayer still useless".