Were the control treated, as they should have been?
When the paper by Leibovici appeared, I submitted a rapid response as
follows:
"According to Clause 30 of the latest revision of the Declaration of
Helsinki:
"At the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the study
should be assured of access to the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic
and therapeutic methods identified by the study.
"To meet this ethical standard, the prayer should now be said for the
control group. If the treatment is effective, this should have the effect
of removing the difference between the groups. I await the results with
interest."
Was this done? If not, Leibovici was surely derelict in his duty.
Was the past then changed? If it was not, then this would cast doubt on
the power of retroactive prayer. If it was changed, how would we know?
Rapid Response:
Were the control treated, as they should have been?
When the paper by Leibovici appeared, I submitted a rapid response as
follows:
"According to Clause 30 of the latest revision of the Declaration of
Helsinki:
"At the conclusion of the study, every patient entered into the study
should be assured of access to the best proven prophylactic, diagnostic
and therapeutic methods identified by the study.
"To meet this ethical standard, the prayer should now be said for the
control group. If the treatment is effective, this should have the effect
of removing the difference between the groups. I await the results with
interest."
Was this done? If not, Leibovici was surely derelict in his duty.
Was the past then changed? If it was not, then this would cast doubt on
the power of retroactive prayer. If it was changed, how would we know?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests