Ah, a difficult science question! One that will take a little research and reading (and not the all-too-familiar cut and paste parroting with which you seem to be adept). I'll provide a response as time dictates. Rapid science is bad science, isn't it?
Why do I feel compelled to provide answers for you when you so completely ignore all requests I make of you?
Let's look at a few of them again:
"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?
Upon what simplistic vision does he base this?
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?For instance, have YOU read it, yet?
Are the opinions yours?
Now, did you read that yourself, or did you rely on other commentators, and researchers, who provided an analysis with which you agreed?
What, then, is it about the "evolutionist" scientific method that is so superior over other scientists and their scientific method?
Do you see the importance?
I assume you'd like to have those 6 criteria show improvement if you were to undergo surgery!?!?!
You do like your Google for your preconceived ideas, don't you?
Have you read the study, WT?
And your point is that scientists can be frauds and only interested in self-aggrandizement and money?
Hmmm... casts a long pall on evolutionary scientists, doesn't it?
Posner?
Flamm?
Study names?
And Cha and Lobo?"
Don't bother. I was just funnin' you on the complexity of his study. Almost impossible to sort out.
What about the many other criteria which showed that prayer worsened the conditions?
Your assumption that Mr. Wirth is a scientist is as fradulent as he was.