The Columbia University 'Miracle' Study: Flawed and Fraud

The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and suspicious from the start but now has been fatally tainted with fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries. The "lead" author said he didn't learn of the study until months after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud. All his previous studies must now be questioned.

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was rocked by perhaps the most horrific event in its history. In the horrible and uncertain days following the destruction of the World Trade Center (and other attacks) by Islamic zealots many Americans turned to prayer. Millions prayed in their homes and churches as their senators and congressmen prayed on the steps of the Capitol building and their president prayed in the White House. Bumper stickers, signs, and banners flooded the nation proclaiming, "God Bless America" and "Pray for America." Millions of faithful Americans prayed for a miracle or perhaps a sign from God. Three weeks later such a miracle occurred. The timing could not have been better.

On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary (1). Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (2). Even the researchers were shocked. The study's results could only be described as miraculous. This was welcome and wonderful news for a shaken nation.

Here are the next two paragraphs of the article:

Columbia University issued a news release claiming that the remarkable study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias and that the study itself was carefully designed to eliminate bias (3). This was no hoax. Media attention immediately focused on the miraculous study, and articles touting its spectacular results quickly appeared in newspapers around the world. Rogerio Lobo, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia and the study's lead author, told Reuters Health that, "Essentially, there was a doubling of the pregnancy rate in the group that was prayed for" (4). Dr. Timothy Johnson, ABC News medical editor and Good Morning America commentator, stated, "A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical" (5).

The facts I will relate here about the Columbia University "miracle" study confirm that those physicians who doubted the study's astounding results had extremely good reasons to be skeptical. It remains to be seen whether ABC's Dr. Johnson, a medical doctor who also serves as a minister at the evangelical Community Covenant Church in West Peabody, Massachusetts, will report or ignore the following shocking information that has since been revealed about the alleged study and its authors.

By all means, read the entire article.

I'll forego snarky comments.

snarky:

as one who has the (often unenviable) responsibility to read medical journals and analyze articles on a routine basis, i can see the original study certainly has methodological flaws. unless i missed something, i didn't see where flamm's article, which is more calumny than refutation, helps support or weaken the concept of "healing" prayer, or helps us understand the strengths or failings of the study results.

If the study has methodological flaws, as you concede, and if the lead author wasn't really the lead author, and if another author won't answer questions about the study, and if the third author is a perpetrator of fraud, I'd say that it would be unwise to rely on the results of the study.

That's not to say that healing prayer isn't a reality, but it is to say that healing prayer isn't proved to exist by this study.

i agree that the study show very little except the tantalizing possibility that prayer influenced events. my point here is that refuting scientific studies takes more than saying that the authors are dirtbags. that they are indeed dirtbags makes me very suspicious of the result, but we shouldn't make a beta error and assume the null hypothesis based on their excursions as miscreants. quite strange that they were anxious to make a statement promoting a highly prescriptive religion through proscribed means....

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.