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.
I notice you try to infer emotions on me instead of refuting my arguments. I am not angry, just right. Byrd is trashed.
Again, too easy!
You mean the report that stated that "we set out with the expectation that we would show no benefit of IP (intercessory prayer)," but was authored by Daniel Wirth, who had previously published many research articles claiming miraculous, supernatural healing. Furthermore, Wirth was not a medical doctor — he has a law degree and a masters degree in, of all things, parapsychology.
You mean the report where the authors would not respond to inquirys about the study?
You mean the study that was "retracted" from the university web-site?
Are you referring to the Wirth that was indicted on felony charges of mail-fraud and transportation of stolen money?