I wrote
Given some hints in Leibovici's background, my guess is that this is
a deliberate hoax (note its presence in the special Christmas issue
of BMJ) intended to provoke discussion. Yet I don't think he
falsified data. So how did he do it? [editing out an annoying typo in my
own
Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And Paul Smith replied:
Run the randomization over and over
again until you get the results you want? With retroactive prayer,
that'd be pretty easy to do, right?
Well, that would be dishonest, wouldn't it? I think we should be
reluctant
(And in the evening too). Alerted by an astute and watchful
colleague, I bring to your attention recent essays on the disturbing
implications of the infamous prayer improves in vitro fertilization
rate study published in the _Journal of Reproductive Medicine_ in
2001, which we've discussed
Stephen Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Given some hints in Leibovici's background, my guess is that this is
a deliberate hoax (note its presence in the special Christmas issue
of BMJ) intended to provoke discussion. Yet I don't think he
falsified data. So how he did he do it?
Run
in the Psychological Sciences
Subject: On the efficacy of prayer: red flags in the morning
But I still wonder about the one published in the British Medical
Journal (Leibovici, L. (2001). Effects of remote, retroactive
intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream
infection
Lenore
I don't think they say anything about that being significant. They are
saying that there were no difference in mortality rates but there were
differences in duration of fever and length of hospital stay. At least
that's how I read it - two sig. results, one non-sig result. So maybe
the
