Replies

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!?!?! What about the other 20 criteria, many of which showed WORSE findings for the prayer group. I guess you missed the part about where there was no difference in hospital stays or mortality.

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? It is up to the person performing the experiment to exclude interferring factors, or at least account for them. The study failed to do so.

Third, the exact experiment has not been repeated, that is true. But then, nobody's resurrected the Studebaker either. The Studebaker was produced and reproduced multiple times.

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. You have already stated in a previous post that Byrd has its contradictions. No need to follow this line.