And since you have neatly dodged my arguments, I assume you have no argument to refute them. Case closed. Byrd is trash.
Yes. I have read it. Many others as well.
You haven't.
To rely on some commentator without investigating the original sources, or documents, to the greatest degree that one can is to set oneself up for shamanism, whether religious or scientific.
You are a seeker. You owe it to yourself to go the difficult route of deep seeking, and not just take the word of anyone.
This discussion is not so much about who can pin which facts on the other, as much as it is about being intellectually honest.
Yes, Byrd has it's contradictions. It also has it's pointed successes. However, other experiments like the Matthews, Marley, McNutt study on prayer for arthritis, and the Cha, Wirth, Lobo study on prayer and in-vitro pregnancy success not only build on Byrd's work (and many others), but they prove that there are statistical observable positive results from prayer.
You owe it to yourself. Try to not be angry.
But you're wrong about prayer. The science in favor is too extensive for you to claim that prayer is ineffective.
Case open. Science is not trash.