Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Andrew M Thornett, Shehan Hettiaratchy, Carolyn Hemsley, John Hopkins, Michael J Brownnutt, Christopher I Price, Max Lagnado, Stephan A Schwartz, Stephen L Black, and Leonard Leibovici Effect of retroactive intercessory prayer BMJ 2002; 324: 1037 [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Correction: 25-30%, not 50-100%

Riccardo Baschetti   (29 April 2002)

God smiles about study

Danja Klaes, Dr. med., Spandauer Damm 130, 14050 Berlin, Germany   (15 May 2002)

żIs Science Sacred?

Jose L Gonzalez de Rivera   (23 June 2002)

Correction: 25-30%, not 50-100% 29 April 2002
Riccardo Baschetti, retired medical inspector CP 671, 60001-970 Fortaleza (CE), Brazil Send response to journal: Re: Correction: 25-30%, not 50-100%	In his letter [1], Stephan Schwartz cites Krucoff and colleagues' article [2] and claims that in this study "The recipients of therapeutic intent experienced a 50-100% reduction in side effects compared with the controls". This reduction, in truth, was 25-30% [2]. As Dr Schwartz had recognised in his personal reply to me, "The discrepancy... came from a conversation with one of the researchers, not the paper itself". Some intuitively erroneous data reported in the electronic responses should not appear in the printed version too. If this regrettably occurs, the BMJ, as a serious and leading biomedical journal, should also publish a printed correction. 1. Schwartz SA. Effect of retroactive intercessory prayer. Correspondents showed misapprehension of principle. BMJ 2002;324:1038. 2. Krucoff MW, Crater SW, Green CL, Maas AC, Seskevich JE, Lane JD, et al. Integrative noetic therapies as adjuncts to percutaneous intervention during unstable coronary syndromes: monitoring and actualization of noetic training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am Heart J 2001;142: 760-7.
God smiles about study 15 May 2002
Danja Klaes, Dr. med., Student of Masters Programme in International Health Institute of Tropical Medicine, Humboldt University at Berlin, Spandauer Damm 130, 14050 Berlin, Germany Send response to journal: Re: God smiles about study	EDITOR- I wish to thank Professor Leibovici for challenging us with the results of his study [1] as well as making us aware of its limitations [2]. He is indeed right in saying that if the pre-trial probability was infinitesimally low, the results of the study would not really change it. However the evidence of the infinitesimally low pre-trial probability is missing. Something is not necessarily wrong just because it does not fit into our model of the physical world [3]. I just imagine God smiling about the study and throwing in a few significant findings - because He knows that researchers find significant findings exciting. I guess Professor Leibovici is right in suggesting prayer should not be tested in controlled trials [2]. Or at least you should not take these trials too seriously. I am sure God doesn't. References: 1 Leibovici L. Effects of remote , retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001;323:1450-1.(22 December) 2 Leibovici L. Author's reply. Electronic response. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection. bmj.com 2001 (www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7344/1037; accessed 15 May 2002). 3 Brownnutt M. Hope should never be squashed by being told that things cannot happen. Electronic response. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection. bmj.com 2001 (www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7344/1037; accessed 15 May 2002).
żIs Science Sacred? 23 June 2002
Jose L Gonzalez de Rivera, Professor of Psychiatry Institute of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatic Research, Avenida de Filipinas, 52 - 28003 Madrid Send response to journal: Re: żIs Science Sacred?	The provocative article in retroactive intercessory prayer by Libovici(1)and the responses it provoked in the BMJ (2)makes it important to remember that science and belief are tricky to mix. Science is made by observation, hypothesis, testing, interpretation of results, generation of new hypotheses, and so on. Belief is formed by convictions, either autonomous or learned, and does not need testing. Indeed, if the belief is sacred (i.e. religious) testing is forbidden. So, it is easy to conclude that some matters are amenable to scientific inquiry and some are not. The flaw with this line of reasoning is that it tends to hypostatize both Science and Religion. But neither science not belief are things. They are the expression of particular human ways of knowing, and both are useful to form a workable picture of the world (3). However, to the scientific way of thinking, nothing is sacred, nor Science itself. The belief that some matters cannot or should not be investigated and/or that scientific research cannot yield results "against the (current) laws of physics" is not science, but sacred thinking. 1. Leibovici L. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2001; 323: 1450-1451 2. Andrew M Thornett, Shehan Hettiaratchy, Carolyn Hemsley, John Hopkins, Michael J Brownnutt, Christopher I Price, Max Lagnado, Stephan A Schwartz, Stephen L Black, and Leonard Leibovici: Effect of retroactive intercessory prayer BMJ 2002; 324: 1037 3. Gonzalez de Rivera, JL: Creativity and Psychosis in Scientific Research. American Journal of Psychoanalysis, 1993, 53:77-84