[philomath]

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.

[snarks_when_bored]

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.