Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:

History And Mystery

Retroactive prayer: a preposterous hypothesis?

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1465 (Published 18 December 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:1465

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

19 December 2003
J Martin Bland
Prof. of Health Statistics
University of York, YO10 5DD