Faith healing:proof of god, or placebo effect?

The Times & The Sunday TimesPrayer seems to have an opposite effect lol My guess is prayer has no effect at all or maybe a placebo effect if the one who is being prayed fore is really devout, and he knows he is being prayed fore. This study actually showed a bad effect from prayer 5% more of the people that knew they where being prayed fore developed complications tough this could be attributed to the fact that no 2 persons are the same and had the exacts same hart problem. My guess is if the number of patients used in the study was larger the numbers would be roughly the same. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

I have read some information about the placebo effect on wikipedia, and I heard some bits about scientific research. This isn't much, and I have poor understanding of it, hence why I stirred up debate.With ''astounding'' I meant that there's often a strong positive or negative effect when somebody believes in something. I was not talking about placebo going against the laws of nature, that would be science-fiction indeed. Once of the reasons I was confused by faith healing, is that alleged healing sometimes seems to go against what is normally possible.
Still, if you don't overestimate the effect of placebo, you can use it for positive means. Even when it stays within nature, it can still be astounding.

So if one's belief in God is the trigger for the placebo effect is this not evidence of the existence and ability of God? Granted it doesn't look like omnipotence but at least it's a start.

You could say that, but placebo also work for other religions, and non-religious matters.

Differences in attitude among individuals aren't at odds with experience. All people have aches and pains. Some shrug it off immediately while others whine perennially; those who complain until something gets done, and those who just get tired of complaining and get on about their business. When I go out into a November snow I'm a misery to behold; whereas, my sister dances in it. Yet we both react pretty much the same way to a February snow. A positive and a negative effect both caused by the time tested placebo Getoverit^®. What reason is there to ascribe the placebo effect to anything more than an attitude adjustment: a known, non-astounding effect? What is alleged goes against what is normally possible, what is possible, and often what we'd want to be possible. But if we stick to confirmed cases of 'healing' "seems" is the operative word. One artifact of the human cognitive process is that the extra attention we pay an unexpected event is attributed to the event. We should never be surprised by what surprises us. Mind over matter would be astounding, mind over mind not so much.

---

When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
Roger Waters

I'd bet a dime for donuts that "slake" is about a gazillion times too strong of a word for the case. That it might ease the desire some I have little doubt. People fill their lives with events called habits. When we skip one of our habits we have a bit of time that we don't know what to do. This causes angst. It's one of the reasons that convention and ritual is such a strong force in society. Retaining the rituals of drug dependence while eliminating the drug is fixing one problem at a time. Have you anything to show that the change in attitude isn't the entirety of the effect? I don't think anecdotal evidence should be accepted out of hand. Hear here! "I think I can. I think I can. I arrgh!" I'm betting you've more of a surmise then an observation. Yes it would: conformatory bias. I bet I could. I bet I could find a doctor that would agree that brain tides cause lunacy. Let's up the standards of evidence a wee bit. I agree. But in what sense?

---

When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
Roger Waters

Am I misunderstanding you? It is the attitude that causes the real effect that shows up in so much double blind placebo controlled research. I am saying that the attitude causes the effect entirely and that the attitude is created in the mind of the patient. Much like God is created in the mind. If a real effect can be produced by the mind then perhaps so can a real god (of sorts). Necessarily?

What real effect? What evidence it there that the patient ⇛is⇚ better? That the patient reports that they feel better? To be sure I'm better off with a broken arm and a smile than I am with a broken arm and a frown, but I still have a broken arm. Do bones knit faster when we have a better attitude, or is attitude better when we have a better attitude? Paint me blas. No. Got a lab report where grinning reduces BUN?

---

When cometh the day
We lowly ones
Through quiet reflection
And great dedication
Master the art of karate
Lo, we shall rise up
And then we'll make
The bugger's eyes water
Roger Waters

quote:

---

Hey there Mr. Space Guy--
How you make that thing fly?

​

--Hell, I'd Go, Dan Hicks and His Hot Licks

---

I don't think the psychological impact of a faith healing or an intense will to live is going to reconnect a severed spine or regrow a limb, OK? You can let that poor horse move on to the other side.I do believe that the mind's impact on the body can have significant impacts on health and healing. Is that what you are denying? I'd have thought that the placebo effect and the phenomena of psychosomatic illness would already suggest otherwise.I do understand that you want more than just data showing an improvement in a patient's subjective evaluation of symptoms.To start, I'll cite some studies where optimism retards the progression of organic disease. I apologize for lacking access to the journals online.

quote:

---

Mental Health Problems and Mind-Body Wellness - References
Citations

​

Matthews KA, et al. (2004). Optimistic attitudes protect against progression of carotid atherosclerosis in healthy middle-aged women. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(5): 640-644.

​

Scheier MF, et al. (1999). Optimism and rehospitalization after coronary artery bypass surgery. Archives of Internal Medicine. 159(8): 829-835.

---

An article at WebMD summarizes the results of the second study:

quote:

---

For example, optimistic coronary bypass patients generally recover more quickly and have fewer complications after surgery than do patients who are less hopeful.

---

After several hours of searching, I find that few studies have been conducted on the issue. The difficulty of doing any kind of double-blind study is apparent, and the inability of physicians actively to control the patient's attitude, perhaps, makes the subject of limited clinical interest.However, a study of lung cancer patients in Australia yielded negative results on a correlation between positive attitudes and outcomes.Still, it was a small study (179 patients), and addressed a disease with nearly 100% mortality at five years out: 8 patients were still living, and their attitude rating showed no correlation with their survival. It seems odd to me to do such a study when the nearly 100% mortality leaves little room for a patient mind-body effect. Perhaps we can just paint you wrong. Why, yes, we have evidence of the power of the mind to accelerate bone fracture healing:

quote:

---

A fascinating study (Ginandes & Rosenthal 1999) demonstrated the benefit of hypnosis in bone healing. In a group of people with fractures they showed a significant increase in speed of both anatomical and functional fracture healing over a control group with similar injuries.

---

The superior outcome for non-depressed patients of all kinds is so well documented I'm not going to offer citations: I'm sure your own research into the matter has already discovered them.Finally, I'll add just a few general observations.We know that the conscious mind can deliberately raise or lower blood pressure, increase blood flow to particular areas, raise or lower body temperature, and, as noted above, accelerate healing of fractures and retard the progression of organic disease. Can the mind have an impact on kidney function? I dunno, I weighed your flippancy and didn't look for any data on that one.But I'd say that the ability to influence general metabolism and blood flow to particular regions of the body makes it possible.It's more than fine to be skeptical; it's essential. It's also lots of fun to express your skepticism with dismissive humor--I know, because I do that, too. It's a shame you didn't look for or cite any evidence one way or the other, though--and I thought you like2know! Mockery is more tasty with a garnish of information.Isn't dismissing a hypothesis for which there is, indeed, some evidence, merely a biased denial?

---

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Here is a good study that helps define the effect.

quote:

---

The explorative analysis revealed that significant placebo effects were predominantly found for parameters measuring physical processes, e.g., blood pressure, or forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1). Therefore, all types of physical outcome parameters were collected in one class, which was named "physical parameters". The remaining parameters, less frequently responding to placebo treatments, appeared to represent biochemical processes measured in peripheral body fluids and tissues, e.g., cholesterol and cortisol. Therefore, they were all taken together in one alternative class, which was named "biochemical parameters". To be more precise, 8 of 16 trials (50%) using physical parameters as outcomes reported significant placebo effects compared with only 1 of 18 trials (6%) using biochemical parameters. This difference was statistically significant (Fisher's exact probability test, P < 0.01).

---

quote:

---

In this study, we were able to identify different kinds of peripheral outcome parameters as one reason for the heterogeneity of placebo effects on observer-reported outcomes. The differential placebo responsiveness of physical versus biochemical parameters should be taken into account when designing future pharmacological studies. A question that ties in with the present results concerns the putative specificity of placebo effects. Depending on the type of disease (e.g., psychiatric, neurological, internal), on the information delivered to the patient, and on the patient's former experiences with treatments, the effects of placebo interventions may differ, and different mechanisms may be involved. To disentangle the specific components of placebo treatments under different circumstances and to work out their effects represents a major challenge for future placebo research.

---

With regard to the issue of anecdotal information. It is those things that protrude from the undifferentiated plane that command our attention.

A couple of years ago I read a report on a small test group that were taught to consciously affect renal function.
Using biofeedback they learned to control their kidneys in a certain way.
As part of the 'trial and error' aspect of biofeedback, they were told to try different expressions.
I don't remember if grinning was effective.Unfortunately I cannot remember any more detail and I am unable find that report. But here is a list of other tests/treatments using biofeedback.

quote:

---

Biofeedback is the process of becoming aware of various physiological functions using instruments that provide information on the activity of those same systems, with a goal of being able to manipulate them at will.

---

The treated conditions are quite varied, but they include epilepsy, stroke, high blood pressure, etc.I think biofeedback could be considered a 'bridge' between psychosomatic/placebo healing and conscious/intentional healing.

Although Placebo Effect is truly powerful enough to help patients recover faster,
I have never seen any scientific evidene of placebo effect showing that big effect size.
I'd like to say that placebo effect is not that big enough to miraculously improve patients in all experiments I am aware of.
Why don't you think the possibility that it's a work of Satan?
I personally believe that there exists the true God, and YHWH is a Satan against the real God, or Creator.
The Satans heal many believes so the believers continuously have false belief.
When scientifically thinking, we can have really many alternative explanations for the healing results.
I'm glad you came out of the box Christanity has made.

Well, if your satan could have healed my grand father I'd have voted for him.Guess what happened?

Firstly: "big effect size" is so vague it becomes meaningless.
Secondly: Argument from self-knowing.

Eh, I can't work out for sure if you're a atheist or a Christian. Judging by the last part.The Satan argument seems a panic button for me. I don't like fear arguments, especially when directed at people who don't have the knowledge to rebuke it. Besides, there's enough non-religious placebo, not to mention minor placebo, to rule out supernatural influences as the only possible cause.And the biggest healings are always seem rare cases of a recovery, that got blown up because praying was involved, or a story that, as said before, are mostly ''from a friend from a friend''.I'm personally trying to gather information about placebo, and that evidence healings have naturalistic causes in this topic.Edited by WSW24, : error in last sentence