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
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I have been conducting a series of workshops titled "Spectrum
Meditation," in which each stage of life is considered to be
influenced by a different band of energy, from red to violet. During
the course of the workshop, participants connect to their past,
present and future through the medium of meditation. During this
process, and with the help of prayer, they are able to heal wounds
and project images of how they would want their future to be, as
well as energise their present. Although they are not changing
their past, they are influencing how they think and feel about it, and
from a subjective viewpoint, this is changing the past.
I have written a book, based on this process titled "7 Ages of
Woman," in which I quoted this article.
I hope the research continues and more evidence is gathered.
I believe in the power of thought, prayer and in the intelligence of
the universe.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
Competing interests: No competing interests
Professor Leonard Finegold suggested that, "to posit “beyond the
superstring theories”... [was]...to go out on a limb". It may indeed be
unnecesary to go any further than string theory.
There are said to be five string theories which have common features.
Hence the term M-theory, M standing for mother, magic, matrix of anything
alse that might take a theoretical physicist's fancy. Holographic theory
is a refinement that incorporates Hawking's very important observation
that the information lost as radiation from a black hole is a function of
the surface area of its event horizon.
According to Brian Greene, the string theorist from Columbia, the
mathematical embodiments of type IIA and type IIB strng theories are
equally successful and differ only in their expressions of geometry. The
type IIA geometry is a circular surface area, possibly as large as 10 to
the 66 sq cm, currently calculated to be 10 to the 61 Planck lengths or
15 billion light years wide. That is the width of the entire universe. The
type IIB geometry is a "snippet" or isolted segment of string with a
surface area, possibly as small as 10 to the minus 66 sq cm, currently
calculated to be 10 to the minus 61 Planck lengths wide.
Put in another way type IIA surface area is proportional and type
IIB inversely proportional or the reciprocal of the radius of the
original. The radius in type IIA is also proportional to its energies,
which are also large, and in type IIB inversely proportional and,
therefore, extremely small ie. of the order of the size of the smallest of
particles. In other words type IIA string theory appears to be the
mathematical formulation of the bosonic phase of existence in the Alice
hypothesis and type IIB to the fermionic phase of existence. In which case
the Alice hypothesis may resolve what is said to be the greatest unsolved
problem in string theory, background-independent formulation. This
conclusion is also consistent with the Calabi-Yau geometries in which one
is the mirror image or dual of the original and has a different number of
holes in it. These geometries appear to me to explain what we can see and
measure.
String theory evolved from particle physics and has sought to
incorporate gravity, as gravitrons, in attempting to reconcile quantum
theory with Einstein's theory of general relativity. Loop quantum gravity,
the competing hypothesis, has evolved from general relativity and from an
attempt to reconcile it with quantum theory. In so doing it has retained
Einstein's curved spacetime as its geometry. Hence spacetime being
illustrated as a twisted pretzel in Hawking's, "the universe in a
nutshell" and Einstein-Rosen bridges and wormholes short-circuiting
pretzel loops to provide a theoretical basis for time travel.
I believe Steven Hawking and George Ellis initiated this approach,
one which has since been REFINED by Lee Smolin. There does not appear to
be a mathematical formation that has been developed along these lines that
can account for the alternating bosonic and fermionic phases of existence
proposed in the Alice hypothesis.
I am lead to conclude, from my readings of the popular science
literature, that the theory of everything (TOE) will evolved from types
IIA and IIB string theories. I am further lead to conclude that spacetime
is not curved and that the bending of light, first observed by Sir Arthur
Eddington, might be an illusion caused by the effects of gravity on
fermionic expressions of light waves as they pass through a gravitonal
field in which there are frozen particles capable of stopping the photons,
as has been demonsrated experimentally, and changing the direction of
their passage which resumes at its original velocity.
Hawking's fanciful illustrations of the shape of spacetime may ,
therefore, be interpreted as a reduction ad absurdum and evidence
supporting the validity of string theories IIA and IIB and of the Alice
hypothesis. In which case the predictions made in terms of the Alice
hypothesis, incuding those concerning consciousness, need to be taken
seriously.
Brain Greene. The elegant universe.
,
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In her review of Baroness Greenfield's book Barbara Godlee wrote,
"the nature and seat of consciousness--[is] the faculty that..
distinguishes humans from other animals" (1). How might we know from the
sound of its hoofbeats and activities whether a zebra might be conscious
or not or whether it might even have a soul as some eastern religions
believe?
The late Sir Julian Huxley, a zoologist and brother of Aldous the
author of "Brave New World", wrote a well known book on, "The soul of the
white ant". The point he made was that a colony of ants behaves like a
single intelligent being in always keeping, for example, the proportions
of soldier and worker ants constant. Who or what dictates the composition
and conduct of a colony of ants? A consciousness or soul unique to the
colony or a collective consciousness of all the ants? Whatever it is
"swarm intelligence" , as it is called, is now being exploited by the
business world (2). It appears to be very real.
I had the opportunity of examining repeatedly the souls of ant
colonies as a boy in Africa when I used to make holes in antheaps to
watch them being repaired. Within seconds came the soldier ants who
formed a ring around the breech and within minutes the worker ants who
repaired the breeches from within. Within hours breeches some 10cm in
diameter were completely repaired abandoning the soldier ants who had
sacrificed their lives for the colony.
In many ways the human body behaves just like a colony of ants in its
homeostasis and control of its cellular functions, blood leukocytes
behaving just like the soldier ants and osteoclasts and osteoblasts like
the worker ants. This is a property of a collective unconsciousness or
even consciousness that has sensing and cognitive capabilties. These might
be attributed to purely mechanistic properties if it were no for the
evidence for the existence of Jungian archetypes, inherited memories and
unconsciousness strikingly revealed in the migrations of the Monarch
butterflies. These take several generations to occur to and from the same
locations.
Might that mean that man posesses an hierarchial set of
unconsciousnesses and consciousnesses, ones to govern bodily events, one
to govern family events, one to govern tribal events and one to govern
human events? That would imply that man has no control over his/he
existence which is surely untrue to some degree at least. In these
behavioural respects, however, it is difficult to distinguish man from a
pride of lions or a herd of zebras.
The existence of a collective consciousness was illustrated very
vividly to me when I followed a pride of ten young lion in a Landrover at
night at Londolozi game park in South Africa. The transformation from them
being ten individuals as different from each other as Snow White's dwarfs
into a single intelligent hunting team when they got the scent of a
waterbuck was truelly remarkable. Their conscious or unconscious division
of labour, which did not have any evidene of overt direction, was
particularly remarkable.
Anyone who has ever had a pet dog or even a cat or horse appreciates
that they have a consciousness and cognitive abilities which they are
able, on occassions, to exhibit and exploit remarkably effectively.
Animals and even birds have personalities just like people. The only
differences are man's ability to articulate his feelings and learn from
his and others' experiences be they heard, seen, or read.
Just look into a pidgen's or a European starling's eye in Green Park
and watch its reactions to one's eating. They are quite capable of making
the most remarkably intelligent assessments and, if a pieces of food are
thrown at them, anticipating one's actions and those of its competitors
and making intelligent decisons. The starlings watch one's hand and fly up
to catch the food before it falls to the ground and is covered in
pidgeons. They may not be able to talk or write but some birds are almost
as intelligent as dogs and other pets. The longer birds or animals live
the more intelligent they appear to become. Parrots, dolphins, and
elephants, which are said to have remarkable social abilities and
memories, are examples.
Watching a fetus grow to term, an infant grow into a child, and a
child into an educated adult it is clear that unconsciousness and
consciousness transform themselves from types indistiguishable from that
in pet animals to those to which Barara Godlee referred in her review of
Susan Greenberg's book. What is more in comparing a subnormal child or
adult with a normal one it is also clear that the capacity for
communication and memory are integral parts in intelligent consciousness
or cognitive functioning.
If it were possible to transplant a human larynx and hands onto a
baby chimp or gorilla and have them grow and function normally would they
be able to learn to talk and think like humans? I submit they would. What
is more I submit it might even be possible to discuss abstract subjects
with them if they were also able to be schooled and educated at university
like a human. One cannot, however, expect an animal that looks different
from its human peers, does not have the same physical attributes, and does
not live longer than ten years to ever acquire the intelligence of a
human.
It is arrogant to presume that man is endowed with cognitive
qualities that are unique and distinct from animals or even birds and
insects. If the Alice hypothesis is valid, and individal and collective
consciousnesses and unconsciousnesses are hierarchical bosonic events,
then pantheism, reincarnation in particular [bosons/fermions] form rather
than a recognisable biological form, are credible beliefs. Indeed in most
ways these beliefs are more credible than any montheistic belief. In
terms of the Alice hypothesis, therefore, the alpha collective
unconsciousness and conciousness may be interpreted as one that includes
all bosons in the universe and their hierachical collective
unconsciousnesses and consciousnesses. The distinction between
consciousness and unconsciousness might simply be a consequence of
differentiation and delegation of responsibilities within each hierachical
unit. We could not finction if ee were conscious of every marcrophage's
and organs
actvities other tha knowing when it was not working by feeling pain or
ill.
Does that mean we should not perform animal experiments, eat meat or
kill flies and fleas? No, for if the Alice hypothesis is valid, then rocks
also have individual and collective unconsciousnesses and even
consciousnesses limited only by their inability to acquire memories and
the cognitive intelligence of living beings. Like rocks few animals have
acquired the cognitive abilities to recognise and therefore anticipate
human actions. There may exist, therefore, a hierarchical set of memories
and cognitive abilities ranging from those present in ananimate objects to
those present in educated and wise adults, wisdom clearly being a function
of age. In which case Barbara Godlee's claim, that "consciousness--[is]
the faculty that.. distinguishes humans from other animals", is simply a
pragmatic one akin to claiming marcophage's do not have an unconsciousness
or consciousness because we are not aware of them. The decisions to
perform animal experiments, kill flies and fleas are also pragmatic ones
without which human evolution, in so far as we can measure it, can be
seriously compromised.
A unique property of living cells is their co-operativity when
combined in collective groups with similar interests. It is a Darwinian
survial advantage of which altruism and sacrifice must be integral parts.
Conflicts arise only when the interests of one individual or collective
unconsciousness and consciousness conflicts with another. In which case
the evolution of a humanity in which there is one language, one spiritual
belief, and one collective goal should eliminate wars without eliminating
altruism or the need for individual sacrifices be they voluntary or
imposed. Viewed in this context altruism is an integral part of Nature
rather than one imposed upon individuals and communities by an ubermenche,
superman, Moses, Pope or god. Gods that are not human idols are also human
creations which, in terms of the Alice hypothesis, may simply not have
fermionic (ordinary matter) forms and be timeless.
Until we understand the nature of consciousness and concept of a god,
gods or even pantheism is hypothetical even if one is lead as I am to
conclude that there is a higher force of which we might all be fermionic
expressions. We may hear the hoofbeats of the hound of heaven but we
cannot see its form.
1. Barbara Godlee. The private life of the brain. Susan Greenfield.
A book review. BMJ 2001; April 14.
2. Meyer C. Swarm intelligence. Harvard Business Review. May, 2001.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Summary: Remember the medical maxim for diagnosis...Whenever you
hear hoofbeats outside, first think of horses—not zebras.
The original unimpeachable paper: When I saw my namesake’s paper
(Leonardo Leibovici, BMJ 2001;323:1450-1) two years ago, I assumed the
clue was that the paper was in the end-of-year (Xmas, Equinox) edition of
BMJ, which edition I always look forwards to. I suspected that the Editor
knew exactly how the paper’s research was done. We have given this paper,
as an example of putative unimpeachable research, to students in our
Science and Religion course. I believe that my namesake reported his work
precisely. I would like to sit down with him over coffee or beer, and say:
“Now, I ask you—as Leonard to Leonardo—will you admit privately that you
have yet to publish the umpteen similar experiments that you did, and
which did not reach any level of significance? Are you familiar with
Sokal’s exploits [Sokal and Bricmont]?” And I hope that, a la our
namesake’s Mona Lisa picture, Leonardo (and the Editor of BMJ) will give
only an inscrutable enigmatic smile, for it is more fun to leave the saga
as a mystery with which we can tease students.
Exuberant sequel: I first comment on the length of writing in the
paper “Retroactive prayer: a preposterous hypothesis” (BMJ 2003;327:1465-
8) and the rapid responses. I sincerely envy the authors in their writing
and explicative abilities, for personally I am no orator...but, as you
know me all, a plain blunt man. The paper with an abstract “Perhaps the
answer lies beyond the superstring theories of today’s physicists”, and
much of the ensuing correspondence, will be of interest to future
historians of science. They will ask why, just because there is no
immediate explanation for something, physicians—otherwise competent, one
prays—gleefully and exhuberantly adopt ideas which are but figments of the
imagination, at present. Physicians and physicists both believe in
Occam’s Razor: “Whenever you hear hoofbeats outside, first think of
horses—not zebras.” Physics is an ultimate achievement of the human
spirit, in that theory and experiment agree to within the width of a human
hair in Los Angeles, measured from New York (this best agreement is not,
as one might expect, in gravitation, but in quantum electrodynamics
[Kinoshita and Nio]). String theory is our best approach to a GUT (grand
unified theory); its proponents will agree that physics is ultimately
based on cruel experiment (also known as evidence-based), and that at
present, alas, there are no good experimental tests of the theory. To
posit “beyond the superstring theories” is, at a minimum, to go out on a
limb, build a house of cards, etc. So, to physicists, “Retroactive
prayer: a preposterous hypothesis” (with many of the comments) is
hilarious and makes wonderful reading [Hobson]. (Some of the comments,
however, do show an excellent understanding.) One thanks the Editor of
BMJ for not submitting the paper to a physics reviewer..see the last
phrase of the preceding paragraph.
Conclusion: Prayerfully pursuing Puck “Lord, what fools these mortals
be!”
I thank Dick Joyce (who co-authored the first controlled study on the
efficacy of prayer in medicine) and Som Tyagi for discussions.
References:
Hobson, A. Physics : concepts and connections.Upper Saddle River, NJ
: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, 2003. This is an excellent accessible
introduction to non-locality.
Kinoshita T., Nio M. Revised alpha^{4} Term of Lepton g-2 from the
Feynman Diagrams Containing an Internal Light-By-Light Scattering
Subdiagram. Physical Review Letters 2003; 90: 021803.
Sokal, A., Bricmont, J. Fashionable nonsense: postmodern
intellectuals' abuse of science. New York : Picador USA, 1999.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In concluding in their response to the electronic letters that the
mind is non-local do Brian Olshansky and Larry Dossey (1) mean that
thought travels at the speed of light or faster than the speed of light as
in entanglement or "spooky-action-at-a-distance"? If thought travels at
the speed of light it would reach the antipodes in about 0.05 of a second
and give the appearance of non-locality, a term usually reserved for
entanglement in quantum theory.
If a magnetic field is placed around a conductor a current is created
which produces a voltage the size of which is the product of the current
(i) and the resistence (R) of the conductor. This is known as the classic
Hall effect. In 1985 Klaus von Klitzing was awarded the Nobel prize for
discovering the quantum Hall effect. What he showed was that if a
conductor is cooled to two degrees above absolute zero and a magnetic
field place is then around it and increased in strength smoothly and
progressively the voltage change is generated in discrete steps.
The conductor loses all its resistance at the steps and momentarily
becomes a superconductor, conductance being the reciprocal of resistance.
What is more the rate at which the discrete steps occurrs is proportional
to the Planck constant, and I believe is called the fine structure
constant. Resistance is in effect "quantized". The implication is that the
conductor may change in these circumstances from a fermionic (ordinary
matter) to a bosonic (energy waves) form and back into a fermionic form
as proposed in the Alice hypothesis (2). This is consistent with Lee
Smolin's mathemetical model of quantum loop gravity in which spacetime
is treated as quanta (3).
Transcranial magnetic stimulation was developed at the Univeristy of
Sheffield by Barker (4). It can cause a temporary loss of speech and other
"lesions" by causing a "functional knockout". It may also induce events
such as an orgasm in a woman. It is being tested as an aid in treating
depressions, enhancing cognition, and even fighting fatigue in airline
pilots. The magnetic stimulation has, however, to be delivered in pulses
to be effective. This raises the possibility that it might be inducing
fermionic events within the brain in much the same way that bosonic pulses
are proposed to do in terms of the Alice hypothesis. As electromagnetic
waves travel at the speed of light and not faster than the speed of light
this might imply that the mind is non-local in sense that thought travels
at the speed of light. Having said that transfer holography, an integral
part of holographic theory, requires a reference beam which, as
previously addressed in considering it implications in the Alice
hypothesis, might indeed be non-local as enganglement in quantum theory
and practice.
Whatever its exact nature the mind or rather thought would appear to
exist in quanta and might well be distinct but intimately connected with
quanta exisiting intermittently in successive fermionic expressions of the
body. If so it might exist in quanta appearing at a rate proprtional with
the Planck constant and with the ambient temperature. That the symptoms of
schizophrenia may disappear when a person develops a fever and return when
the fever subsides, as observed in the recent book "The madness of Adam
and Eve", makes the hypothetical effect of temperature on the mind
clinically relevant.
1. Brian Olshansky and Larry Dossey
Retroactive prayer: a preposterous hypothesis?
BMJ, Dec 2003; 327: 1465 - 1468. (Plus electonic discussion)
2. Patrick Bracken and Philip Thomas
Time to move beyond the mind-body split
BMJ, Dec 2002; 325: 1433 - 1434. (Plus electronic discussion).
3. Lee Smolin. Atoms of space and time. Scientific American. January
2004
4. Mark S. GeorgeStimulating the Brain; September 2003
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Our paper did not defend Leibovici's study but was in fact critical
of it and suggested alternative explanations and confounding variables
that may have influenced its outcome. We did advocate, however, giving
the possibility of retro-temporal intentionality a fair hearing because of
abundant evidence supporting this possibility. This includes five
experiments of physicist Helmut Schmidt involving time-displaced mental
influence of pre-recorded inanimate random events. One of Schmidt's papers
is co-authored with Professor Henry P. Stapp of University-California
Berkeley, who is perhaps the current dean among quantum theorists. The
overall results of these studies was P = 0.0001. This approaches Jacobs'
recommended P < 0.00001 as constituting the "extraordinary evidence" he
requires before accepting retroactive influence. Yet Schmidt's studies
are not the whole of it. Braud reviewed a total of 19 studies of 233
sessions involving attempts to influence, retroactively, various living
systems, ten of which yielded statistically significant results.
We emphasize that the issue of retroactive mental influence does not
hinge on Leibovici's study, but on a great many experiments in living and
nonliving systems that are much more precise than Leibovici's. We
furthermore suggest that, while more evidence is needed, it is already
quite extraordinary. We suggest that the consistency of these findings
points to a deep principle within nature: the spatiotemporal nonlocality
of consciousness.
-- Brian Olshansky, MD
-- Larry Dossey, MD
References
Braud W. Wellness implications of retroactive influence: exploring
an outrageous hypothesis. Alt Ther Health Med. 2000;6(1):37-48.
References to all of Schmidt's experiments mentioned above can be found in
Braud's paper.
Schmidt H. Collapse of the state vector and psychokinetic effect.
Foundations of Physics. 1982; 12(6):565-581.
Schmidt H, Stapp H. PK with prerecorded random events and the
effects of preobservation. Journal of Parapsychology. 1993;57:331-349.
Competing interests:
We are the authors responding to our manuscript
Competing interests: No competing interests
We agree with Professor Roy that a scientist's evaluation of prayer
should be based on "the unswerving commitment to facts: only facts." This
is different from the response of theologians, philosophers, believers,
and nonbelievers, who may marshal entirely different classes of responses
based on religious teachings, revelation, personal conviction, and private
reasoning.
In writing about the research on prayer and spirituality over the past
decade, we have discovered that this subject is a minefield. Passions run
high and observers often conduct themselves unpredictably. Even
scientists who profess an unstinting devotion to empiricism often behave
in ways they would denounce in others. We understand that science is a
rough-and-tumble enterprise and should be, but often the response to
prayer research seems overheated in the extreme.
The most common departures from "only facts" in physicians' criticisms of
prayer research are theological and philosophical assertions about whether
prayer research should be done, whether consciousness should operate
remotely, whether the Absolute should respond in controlled prayer
experiments, whether these experiments are blasphemous, ad infinitum.
Usually these arguments are combined with passing objections about
experimental design and interpretation, but these often seem secondary to
the underlying personal ire stirred by the experiments themselves. We
submit that the field of prayer research would be advanced immeasurably if
physicians and scientists resisted the temptation to tell the Almighty
what to think and how to behave, and just stick with "only facts" as Roy
suggests.
We encourage genuine skepticism, the setting aside of disbelief until the
facts are in. Science requires skepticism and cannot be healthy without
it. Yet authentic skepticism is exceedingly demanding. It is a purifying
fire. It requires a dispassionate neutrality that, in areas as incendiary
as prayer, can be difficult to achieve. Thus much of what passes for
skepticism about prayer research is more akin to a contemptuous cynicism,
which author Wallace Stegner called "that armor, that curse, that evasion,
that way of staying safe while seeming wise."
Professor Roy quotes Whitehead's observation that dogma in science bars
"fundamental novelty." Is retroactive (or proactive) prayer so
fundamentally novel that it should be rejected in principle, as Leibovici
suggested, in spite of empirical evidence supporting it? It sometimes
seems that we have lost all balance in what constitutes novelty. Consider
that most cosmologists adhere to the Big Bang, the primordial explosion
that signaled the beginning of the universe. What existed prior to the
Big Bang? The answer generally given is nothing. If scientists are
willing to believe that something as stupendous as the entire Universe
came from nothing, it is difficult to imagine what they would not believe.
If skeptics can swallow the tenets of modern cosmology about the origins
of the universe, why should they go ballistic when a patient gets better
when someone prays for her? There are no controlled studies supporting
the Big Bang, while there are nine controlled clinical studies of prayer,
five of which show statistically significant results. In addition, as we
pointed out, hundreds of controlled studies in nonhuman biological and non
-biological systems buttress these findings, suggesting that the remote
operations of consciousness reflect a deep principle in nature.
Ironically, in spite of this extreme imbalance of evidence favoring remote
intercessory prayer, the Big Bang enjoys much greater acceptance than
prayer. It seems that some forms of novelty are admissible, while others
are not, and that we are dealing with something other than "only facts."
With Professor Roy we look forward to the day when the remote, nonlocal
expressions of consciousness seem less repellant, and "just facts" are
allowed to speak for themselves.
- Brian Olshansky MD and Larry Dossey MD
References:
Chibnall JT, Jeral JM, Cerullo MA. Experiments in distant intercessory
prayer: God, science, and the lesson of Massah. Archives of Internal
Medicine. 2001;161(21):2529-2536.
Dossey L. Prayer and medical science. Archives of Internal Medicine.
2000;160(12):1735-1738.
Stegner W. Quoted in: Leonard G. Interview of Wallace Stegner.
Brain/Mind Bulletin. 1994;19(6): 7.
Competing interests:
We are the authors of the manuscript responding to responses.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Prof Roy characterises my mention of ‘The Force’ as a puerile
reaction. OK, it’s a fair cop. I admit it. It was a bit silly. However,
behind this puerile reaction was a serious point struggling to get out.
As Prof Roy correctly points out, it would be bad science to dismiss
Leibovici’s study out of hand simply because it tests a preposterous
hypothesis. Progress in science is made by being open to seemingly
preposterous hypotheses, and letting experimental evidence be your guide.
Nonetheless, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I hope
we can all agree that retroactive intercessory prayer represents an
extraordinary claim. Leibovici’s study found no significant effect of
prayer on mortality, and the effects on duration of hospital stay and
duration of fever were of only marginal significance (and duration of stay
would have been non-significant had Leibovici adjusted for multiple
testing). Frankly, this doesn’t even come close to extraordinary evidence.
So I do not dismiss Leibovici’s results purely because they test a
preposterous hypothesis. But because of the combination of preposterous
hypothesis and weak evidence, I cheerfully dismiss them.
But let’s suppose for a minute that someone repeats Leibovici’s
experiment with a larger sample size and finds that the intervention group
fares better on all outcomes with P < 0.00001 for all of them. This
would certainly suggest that all is not well with our current view of the
space-time continuum. But the study would tell us nothing about the
mechanism of the effect. If one is to be guided purely by experimental
evidence, and not by prior religious beliefs, in what way would such a
result be any less evidence for The Force than for the intervention of a
Judaeo-Christian deity?
Competing interests:
OK, I'd better come clean here. I don't actually believe in The Force.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Comments by Brian Olshansky and Larry Dossey
on the responses to:
Retroactive prayer: a preposterous hypothesis?
BMJ 2003;327:1465-1468
Were the control treated, as they should have been?
—J Martin Bland (19 December 2003)
Bland suggests that it was unethical in Leibovici’s study of
retroactive prayer to deny prayer to the control group following the
experiment. Some researchers in prayer experiments agree and have indeed
assigned prayer to the control group after completion of the study.
But can prayer be denied? Unlike an experiment involving the testing of a
pharmaceutical drug, it is unlikely that the control group in a prayer
study is totally denied prayer. Patients pray for themselves or their
loved ones pray for them, regardless of which group they are in. This
means that human studies test not prayer versus no prayer, but differing
degrees of prayer. This situation resembles high-dose versus low-dose drug
testing for a particular condition, which is frequently done. This
“problem of extraneous prayer” can be overcome by testing prayer not in
humans but in animals, plants, and microbes, or generators of random
numbers, all of which presumably do not pray for themselves.
Bland’s suggestion that the application of prayer to the control group
would have abolished the differences between the two groups if prayer is
effective is excellent and we support this idea in future studies. We
know of no studies that have employed this strategy.
— B. Olshansky & L. Dossey
Reference
1. Dossey L. The case for nonlocality. In: Reinventing Medicine.
San Francisco, Calif: HarperSanFrancisco; 1999: 37-84.
Does this mean that the holocaust never happened?
— Richard G Fiddian-Green (20 December 2003)
Fiddian-Green suggests that if prayer could retroactively influence
the hospital course of patients, the Holocaust and other events should be
equally amenable to being changed or rendered nonexistent. This assumes
that all events should demonstrate equal susceptibility to retroactive
influence. It is not obvious to us that this should be so. We do not
expect any antibiotic to be universally effective; penicillin is effective
against some microbes but not others.
The Holocaust is one of the most frequent examples cited by critics of
prayer. For all we know, without prayer the Holocaust might have been
exponentially more disastrous. One (fortunately) cannot perform controlled
trials of holocausts or natural disasters in order to put prayer to the
test. We believe that controlled clinical trials of intentionality and
prayer are more reliable guides to prayer’s effectiveness or lack of it
than examples such as the Holocaust.
— B. Olshansky & L. Dossey
Did anyone cite Pascal?
— Nicholas D Moore (20 December 2003)
Professor Moore states that one would expect, by chance, one in
twenty studies of prayer to be statistically positive. In fact, five of
nine controlled clinical trials of prayer have proved to be statistically
positive to date, far more than the one in twenty expected by chance.
References for most of these studies were cited in our paper.
Professor Moore sees connections between the justifications people make
for both homeopathy and prayer. We take no position on homeopathy and
leave it to others to decide if homeopathy and prayer are analogous.
Moore’s comments on the dangers of prayer are facetious, yet they should
be seriously considered. One of us (LD) has reviewed the negative aspects
or side-effects of distant intentions and prayer, for which there is
considerable evidence. For example, intentions have been employed
remotely to increase and decrease the kinetic rates of biochemical
reactions, microbial growth rates in test tubes, and the growth of tumors
in animals. These findings suggest paradoxically that so-called negative
prayers and intentions may have a benevolent aspect. For example, for
someone afflicted with tuberculosis or cancer, it would be quite wonderful
if prayers or intentions could demolish mycobacteria or cancer cells. The
capacity for negative prayers and intentions therefore constitutes
survival value for the organism possessing it, and is a rationale for the
development of such a trait from the perspective of evolutionary biology.
In view of the possibility that prayer might cause harm, informed consent
for prayer should be considered in medical settings. Not everyone wants
to be prayed for; some see prayer as an invasion of privacy and an attempt
to usurp personal control. There are situations, however, where informed
consent is impossible, as when the patient is an infant or is unconscious
and unaccompanied by next-of-kin.
— B. Olshanksy & L. Dossey
Reference:
1. Dossey L. Be Careful What You Pray For. San Francisco, Calif:
HarperSanFrancisco; 1997
A preposterous hypothesis: retroactive prayer.
— Keith G Davies (20 December 2003)
We agree that a repeat of Leibovici’s study is warranted, including
prayer for the control group to see if the effect disappears.
— B. Olshanksy & L. Dossey
The power of thought in joules.
— Richard G Fiddian-Green (21 December 2003)
There are several reasons, as we stated in our paper, why energetic
concepts such as joules, drawn from classical physics, are inadequate in
understanding remote healing intentions and prayer. Nearly all the
evidence from experiments in distant intentionality and prayer suggest
that these phenomena are nonlocal — i.e., they do not decay with distance,
the distant correlations are immediate, they are unmediated by any
demonstrable physical or energetic intermediary signal, and the influence
cannot be shielded. Joule-related events do not behave like this.
It is unclear to most physicians how prayer could work if one
excludes exchanges of known forms of energy from its mechanism. This is
the essence of nonlocal events that have been documented in a variety of
studies within quantum physics over the past two decades. Several
hypotheses that make use of these findings have been advanced to explain
consciousness-related events that appear to be nonlocal. There is no
solid evidence so far, however, linking quantum physics and the operations
of consciousness. Whether quantum physics and nonlocality will eventually
prove fruitful in deciphering prayer and distant intentions remains to be
seen.
— B. Olshansky & L. Dossey
Reference
1. Clarke CJS. The nonlocality of mind. Journal of Consciousness
Studies. 1995; 2(3):231-40.
Theory of everything and multiple worlds: preposterous hypotheses?
— Richard G Fiddian-Green (22 December 2003)
Fiddian-Green’s suggestion that Leibovici’s findings are consistent
with the multiple-worlds hypothesis of Everett, Wheeler, and Graham
(sometimes called many-worlds or parallel-universe theory) is intriguing,
and we know of no way to disprove this possibility.
Although the multiple-worlds hypothesis is said to be mathematically
consistent, many physicists and cosmologists disdain it for the same
reason some individuals reject retroactive prayer: its seems inherently
implausible and therefore distasteful. Everyone to her own taste, we say.
We know of no explanation for retroactive prayer — or proactive prayer,
for that matter — that goes down sweetly.
— B. Olshansky & L. Dossey
If retroactive prayer changes outcome what of negative thoughts?
— Richard G Fiddian-Green (24 December 2003)
As mentioned above, considerable evidence suggests that intentions
can function remotely to bring about negative biological effects. Please
see our response to Nicholas D Moore, 20 December 2003.
Fiddian-Green asks whether it might be necessary to have
investigators with opposing beliefs perform randomized studies to
eliminate the possibility of biasing the randomization one way or the
other. This type of experiment has been performed by parapsychology
researchers Marilyn Schlitz and Richard Wiseman. Schlitz, who is cordial
to the possibility that conscious intentions can act remotely, was able to
effect statistically significant results in a laboratory experiment
involving the detection of being stared at, the details of which cannot be
described here. Wiseman, a widely known skeptic of these phenomena, was
unable to achieve significant results in the same experimental set-up.
The experiment was replicated by the same investigators.
Fiddian-Green also raises the question of whether hypnosis may help
explain some of the effects of acupuncture and whether the intentions of
the acupuncturist are involved by placing the needles “with conviction.”
We take this possibility seriously. Remote hypnotic suggestion was
attempted by many investigators with promising findings, before such a
phenomenon in the twentieth century came to be considered too implausible
to warrant further study.
References:
1. Wiseman R, Schlitz M. Experimenter effects and the remote
detection of staring. Journal of Parapsychology. 1997;61:197-208.
2. Wiseman R, Schlitz M. Experimenter effects and the remote detection of
staring: an attempted replication. Proceedings of Presented Papers:
Parapsychological Association 42nd Annual Convention. 1999;471-479.
3. Dossey L. Hypnosis: a window into the soul of healing. Alt Ther
Health Med. 2000:6(2):12-17, 102-111.
Re: Re: retroactive prayer.
— Sandra Lobo (30 December 2003)
Lobo suggests that Leibovici’s study is “junk pseudoscience.” We are
well aware of the capacity of prayer research to evince passionate
responses. We believe, however, that the denunciation of prayer can be
justified only through further empirical studies and through an
examination of the already substantial data suggesting that consciousness
can act remotely in the world. As we stated in our paper, many phenomena
that were originally considered preposterous (the telegraph,
atherosclerosis as a cause of heart disease, and so on) are now accepted
in science. Several hundred additional examples could be cited. They
suggest caution in prematurely condemning phenomena that violate intuition
and shock common sense, however difficult this may be to achieve.
Reference
1. Cerf C, Navasky V. The Experts Speak: The Definitive
Compendium of Authoritative Misinformation. New York, NY: Villard; 1998.
Retroactive prayer: an important omission from the data?
— Norman Guthkeich (31 December 2003)
Guthkeich suggests that Leibovici’s subjects were not adequately
randomized. We also raised this possibility in our paper, and suggested
that the source of the inadequate randomization could have been
Leibovici’s own intentions. He may have unconsciously “randomized” the
long-stay cases into the control group, biasing the results toward his
preexisting intention. This possibility, we pointed out, is consistent
with studies suggesting that human intention can interfere with processes
believed to be inherently random.
Guthkeich states that the degree of energy required to accomplish
retroactive prayer is the equivalent of energetic output of all the stars
in our galaxy, an event that would surely have been noticed in a hospital.
But we do not know how prayer works. We have suggested above that it does
not involve energetic exchanges of the sort Guthkeich proposes, but is is
a genuinely nonlocal phenomenon — unmediated, unmitigated, and immediate.
References:
1. Dossey L. How healing happens: exploring the nonlocal gap. Alt
Ther Health Med. 2002;8(2): 12-16, 103-110.
2. Dossey L. Energy talk. The Network. The Scientific and
Medical Network Review [UK]. April 1997; 63: 3-7.
3.Dossey L. The forces of healing: reflections on energy,
consciousness, and the beef Stroganoff principle. Alt Ther Health Med.
1997;3(5):8-14.
Re: Re: Re: Retroactive prayer
— L S Lewis (31 December 2003)
Dr Lewis’s recognition of the articles of faith that underlie his
assumptions is admirable. However, we are not as certain as he that the
past is off limits to the effects of human intention. As we stated in our
paper, the work of Schmidt and the review by Braud suggest that both
biological and non-biological systems can be affected by human intentions,
although the events in question appear to lie in the past.
These events are as mind-boggling to us as they are to Drs Lewis, Lobo,
and others who have joined this discussion. We find consolation in the
fact that they are also mind-bending to the physicists and researchers
involved. We are soothed by the observation of Sir Arthur Eddington about
the Uncertainty Principle in modern physics: “Something unknown is doing
we don’t know what.”
Reference:
1. Eddington AS. Quoted in: Wilber K. Quantum Questions:
Mystical Writings of the World’s Great Physicists. Boston, Mass:
Shambhala Publications; 1984: back cover quotation.
Is Robert Hooke the real hero?
— Richard G Fiddian-Green (31 December 2003)
and
Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest? — Richard G Fiddian Green (3
January 2004)
We are dazzled by Fiddian-Green’s virtuoso command of English
history, of which we Americans are famously ignorant. To avoid displaying
this shortcoming, we thank him for his comments and reserve comment on the
intriguing connections he draws.
Retroactive prayer, etc.
—Norman Guthkeich (4 January 2004)
Guthkeich states, “The more fundamental problem is whether
petitionary prayer can ever be effective, since it must be addressed to A
Being….” We regard the mechanism — if that is the proper term — of
petitionary prayer as trans-empirical, beyond the reach of science as
presently constituted. We cannot imagine an experiment that could
decipher whether or not the Absolute, however termed, is involved in the
“prayer loop.”
This does not mean, however, that prayer is scientifically out of bounds.
Throughout history, people who believe in prayer have made the empirical
assertion that prayer is correlated with effects in the physical world.
Whenever empirical assertions are made, the attentions of science cannot
be ruled out. Science can tell us that something happened, even though
it may not tell us how.
Not all religions and cultures would agree with Guthkeich that
petitionary prayer necessarily involves a Supreme Being. For example,
some forms of Buddhism are not theistic, yet prayer is precious to such
Buddhists. They do not offer prayers to a god but to the universe at
large. In several of the clinical studies involving the remote effects of
prayer and intentionality, it does not appear to matter which religion the
intercessor is affiliated with or whether s/he is affiliated with a
religion at all.
These observations can be inflammatory to religious fundamentalists
who are convinced that their one true god would answer no prayers but
their own. Yet studies in intercessory prayer say otherwise. This is one
reason why these studies affirm religious tolerance, from which our world
could currently benefit.
Reference:
1. Dossey L. The return of prayer. Alt Ther Health Med.
1997;3(6):10-17, 113-120.
Personal note
We are grateful for the thoughtful comments of the many responders to
our paper and the time they took to craft them.
— Brian Olshansky, MD
— Larry Dossey, MD
Response to responses, BMJ
Competing interests:
We are the authros of the manuscript responding to some of the comments
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Retroactive prayer: a preposterous hypothesis?
Scientific studies and official research in the field of Psychology have already proven that human consciousness remains intact, even after the death of the body/cardiac arrest/zero electrical brain activity/etc.
Hospital studies on thousands of patients, with complete recording of clinical data, demonstrated the indestructibility of "human consciousness". [1][2][3][4][5]
Memories, emotions, experiences, thoughts, persist intact, in an immaterial form, even after the recorded death of the brain/heart/body, and furthermore, new experiences can be recorded and persist, beyond somatic mortality.
Indeed, individual human consciousnesses interact and communicate to form a global consciousness, with significantly recordable universal responses. [6][10]
Materialists, Atheists, Agnostics, etc, will have difficulty to explain "life after death", eternal immaterial existence of human consciousness, long range interacting human emotions, etc.
Religions of the World, on the other hand, had been spreading this knowledge for Millennia, the design of an immaterial immortal eternal human soul.
A published systematic review of the randomised, placebo controlled trials of distant healing, through remote retroactive intercessory prayers, showed a clear positive treatment effect in 57% of them. [7][8][9]
References
[1] http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(14)00739-4/fulltext
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25301715
[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17416449
[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24994974
[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/12/first-hint-of-life-after-d...
[6] http://noosphere.princeton.edu/gcpintro.html
[7] http://annals.org/aim/article/713514/efficacy-distant-healing-systematic...
[8] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10836918
[9] http://www.bmj.com/content/323/7327/1450
[10] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27498903
Competing interests: No competing interests