From Mr R. J. Schmidt, MRPharmS
SIR,—Although I have not had the opportunity to read the article in New Scientist to which "Onlooker's" article on "Prayer power" (PJ, February 5, p198) refers, the story sounds familiar. If I am not mistaken, the study was reported in the scientific literature a few years ago and was discussed a couple of years ago on BBC Radio 4.
The study is just one in the area of "distant healing", but presents a major dilemma to those with responsibility for designing clinical trials. There are at least two implications of the data that simply cannot be ignored:
1. If the difference in outcome observed in the two groups was not related in any way to a distant healing effect mediated by prayer, then we have to assume that previously supposed random distribution of patients into treatment groups cannot be relied upon to produce a random distribution. Supposedly randomised studies should, therefore, be regarded as fatally flawed.
2. If the difference in outcome in the two groups was related to a distant healing effect mediated by prayer, then all clinical trials conducted to date in which a control has not been included for prayer-mediated distant healing have to be regarded as invalid and the findings rejected.
The interviewee in the Radio 4 programme to which I refer above noted that the study carried out in the coronary care unit had profound significance but that no one had apparently taken the obvious step of trying to repeat the study.
"Onlooker" has done well to draw attention to this issue. He has opened more than a can of worms. His article may in the future be looked upon as the point from which research into distant healing, healing touch, and the placebo effect was finally given the attention it deserves.
Richard J. Schmidt
Skipton, North Yorkshire