I asked for your impressions of the methods and statistical analyses of the prayer/in-vitro-fertilization study at http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Features/Feature.htm
In response, Stephen Black wrote: > After you strip away the bells and > whistles, it's actually a simple study, and the results are > clear. You can't argue with pregnancy as an objective indicator > of success. I even checked their statistical test of a > difference between two proportions. It all checks out, and I > can't find the slightest flaw. This was my conclusion, too, although I did not give the study the thorough examination that Stephen apparently did. > If the outcome isn't a result of design flaws, what then? One of > the usual two: fraud or incompetence. This, of course, is possible. But various "chance" factors are also possible. In particular, random assignment may not have been successful in distributing important extraneous variables equally between the prayer and nonprayer groups. For example, the authors stated that "in randomization of the 25 women <30 years..., there were more women (n=19) in the prayer group." Since the authors also mentioned that pregnancy rates generally are higher in IVF-ET treatment of younger women, this would have raised the pregnancy rates in the prayer group. (On the other hand, they also mentioned that praying "worked better" in older women: more pregnancies in those who were prayed for than those who were not. Thus, this apparent deviation from randomization would not explain the findings.) My point is that fraud and incompetence are possible explanations; but there is also the possibility that "chance" alone could explain the difference. Paul Smith wrote: >most couples who are motivated enough to use an IVF clinic >are already praying for a pregnancy, and have been for some time. Of course, if you read the study again, you will notice that the people who are praying for the patients to have a successful procedure are themselves being prayed for. That is, another group of people are praying for the first group to help them to be more successful prayers!!! Thus, perhaps their prayers are more likely to be answered??!! Stephen Black wrote: > I doubt that hardly any clinic anywhere is going >to make use of this startling new finding. Why? >Because no one will believe it. On this, I will have to respectfully disagree. I think that there are many people who will believe these findings. The fact that the study was done at all is due to the fact that there is a vocal group of medical practitioners who advocate such things. Complementary and alternative medicine--which includes interventions such as the manipulation of "human energy fields," homeopathy, and herbal products--is promoted by more than a small number of medical practitioners. I predict that we will hear quite a bit about this study's results in the near future. Jeff -- Jeffry P. Ricker, Ph.D. Office Phone: (480) 423-6213 9000 E. Chaparral Rd. FAX Number: (480) 423-6298 Psychology Department [EMAIL PROTECTED] Scottsdale Community College Scottsdale, AZ 85256-2626 Listowner: Psychologists Educating Students to Think Skeptically (PESTS) http://www.sc.maricopa.edu/sbscience/pests/index.html --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
