Translation. You are unable to refute my arguments and are trying to trash me instead of doing the good work of proving your case with facts. Until then, ta ta.
Your query:
"Too EASY!
First, the 'prayed' group had improvement in only 6 of 26 conditions. In many they fared WORSE than the control group!
Second, there is no evidence that the 'control' group did not pray for themselves or had relatives praying for themselves. It is highly likely that there was no substatial difference in the amount of prayer for either group.
Third, This experiment has not been repeated. Isn't that a requirement for your accepting a hypothesis? That it be repeated?
Fourth, Numerous studies have been done which refute the Byrd study.
Thank you."
WT, Gary Posner sells medical equipment devices and is an M.D. to boot.
What do you think his dog is in this fight?
If you continue to parrot other's beliefs, then eventually you have to ask yourself, who am I?
But because you seem focused on not responding, I'll go forward and play the fool to your queries:
First, Yes, Byrd's methodology has been criticized, but of the 26 criteria per patient that he monitored, several criteria showed improvement, as determined by the statistical analysis of the proofs set up prior to the experiment. I assume you'd like to have those 6 criteria show improvement if you were to undergo surgery!?!?!
Second, when your guide, Gary Posner, makes a claim that there's no evidence that the group didn't pray for itself, upon what evidence does he make that claim? None. I can claim that you're a Northeastern liberal, but upon what evidence do I base this? None. Just like Posner. Secondarily, he seems fixated on the idea that quantity of prayer=effectivity. Upon what simplistic vision does he base this? Have you asked yourself these questions, or just swallowed it whole?
Third, the exact experiment has not been repeated, that is true. But then, nobody's resurrected the Studebaker either.
Study design becomes more refined, more pointed, just like car design. When I mentioned studies in support of Byrd in post 237 you didn't respond. If that's not repetition (albeit not in cardiology) what is it?
Fourth, which are the "numerous" studies that you would like to bring to the table that refute Byrd? Did they utilize the exact same criteria that Byrd did, or did they attempt to proof his study with different methodology. Name the study and let's see.
So, there's my response. Now how about all those posts where you've been so obstinate about answering my queries?
For instance, have YOU read it, yet?
And, there's numerous questions that are begging for your refutation in this post. Favor me.