In the chapter, “The Columbia University “Miracle” Study Flawed and Fraud”, author Bruce Flamm provides arguments that belittle a “miraculous” study conducted at Columbia University, claiming that the scientific method was inadequately used through fraud and deception. To start off, the author commences his article by referring to the incident of 09/11, a time where America was found in devastation and fear, leading its citizens to prayer. Soon enough, the nation was flooded with proclaimed faith-from banners and signs to congressmen and senators praying on the Capitol building in hopes for a miracle. Astoundingly, on October 01,2001, it was reported that prestigious researchers from Columbia University Medical Center had discovered what was known as the “miracle” study. Published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, the study, led by researchers Cha/Wirth/Lobo, demonstrated through scientific methods that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups increased their likelihood of becoming pregnant than those who did not have people praying for them (Flamm 2004). Once the news reached the nation, millions were astonished with the remarkable results that the “prestigious” study brought. Although Columbia University claimed that “the study itself was carefully designed to eliminate bias” (Flamm, 2004, p. 255), many physicians were highly skeptical of the method used to achieve such results. The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study initially involved 219 infertility
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
The placebo effect has been affecting people for hundreds of years. In the 1940s sugar pills were sold in doctors’ catalogs specifically for the purpose of prescribing them to psychiatric patients. Today, over 60% of doctors admit to prescribing placebos to their patients, although there is an unwritten rule among doctors in the United States that placebos should no longer be given to patients. Some even do it on a regular basis because they believe the effect a fake drug has on the brain is more effective for its price than the real medication or treatment. In the documentary, Placebo: Cracking the Code, viewers see a few different perspective of the placebo effect. They hear from doctors, patients, and researchers to more fully understand the ins and outs of the placebo effect. These different viewpoints serve as an effective way to bring light the producers’ purpose: to show just helpful and sometimes harmful placebo drugs can be.
The video titled Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer, was interesting to see. I recognize that antenna that he said was used to search for marijuana in schools. I remember seeing it on a show on television. They were in an abandoned house and calling spirits, if the antenna moved, they were getting closer. It seems that we believe in supernatural ideas since that is what we as humans are doing, we are seekers. Moreover, some of us realize that it is kooky or not true accordingly we move on, but others do not. One quote by Shermer, caught my attention, “You can say a miracle occurs, but it doesn’t explain anything or offer anything.” I believe it was last week when the Pope canonized Mother Teresa; she was made a saint. One step is a miracle or healing. I believe two different people/families stated they had prayed to her consequently their family member was cured. I always wondered how does anyone know that praying did indeed heal. No doubt, you ought to be a devout
When studies were shown not to support the film’s argument, they were occasionally argued to be irrelevant due to interested manufacturers funding (and possibly manipulating) the data within the studies for monetary gains. An example is when Dr. Mercola that the 90 studies that find aspartame to be harmless by Ralph G. Walton and the like, 90 percent of them are funded by corporate interest and that any independent studies find the exact opposite, insinuating fowl play in the
This violates the intellectual standard of accuracy and breadth. We do not know about the “research study” and the accuracy of its statistics. Has the study been replicated? The credibility of a single, limited study comes into question. This person only specifies one source, the Cromwell alumni magazine and it could be bias. Hope’s own position as a student and legacy herself may be affected her perspective—perhaps even determining the approach she
The Spindrift organization spent a decade performing laboratory experiments trying to determine which prayer strategy was most effective: directed prayer for a specific outcome, or non-directed prayer, having no specific outcome. Directed prayer participants tried to “direct” the process of prayer with having an outcome in mind. For example one may wish to rid a person of cancer, or recovering from a heart disease. Non-directed prayer, on the other hand, approach prayer with a more open-ended mind-set, in which no specific outcome was held in mind. Dossey considered that the Spindrift research experiments has given us much evidence to demonstrate that non-directed prayer works better than directing prayer for a specific outcome. The Spindrift researchers tried to grow mould on the surface of agar plates used routinely by bacteriologists. After stressing but not killing a patch of mould, directed prayer was used to encourage growth on one side of the plate while non-directed prayer was used on the other side of the divided glass surface. Directed prayer produced no results. Non-directed prayer produced multiplication of the mould into concentric growth rings. These and other experiments conducted by Spindrift give indications for the best prayer method to use in situations when we don 't know what should happen. When non-directed prayer is answered, the outcome is always in the direction
They deceived them for 40 years by making them think they were receiving treatments for “bad blood” when in fact they were withholding treatment. However, in present day, researchers must comply with guidelines and undergo a review panel to be approved. Participants must be informed of the study and its risks as well as the right to decline participation at any given time. The subjects must also be competent and be able to understand what is happening in the experiment as well as its
However, by quoting Bruce Friedman, a blogger and pathologist for the University of Michigan Medical School (Carr 501), and Maryanne Wolf, a developmental psychologist at Tufts University (502), it seemed credible to use their statements to enforce his position. Nicholas Carr also pointed out findings of a five-year research on the behaviors of visitors to two popular research sites (501). These sources he chose seem to be legitimate and reliable, which helps make his claim seem convincing.
Morris, J., & Song, L. (2013, September 16). Study Delivers Good News, Bad News on
The credibility of the authors is seen in the background of the authors. Marianne B Sutton and Michael
Ehrenreich and Fuentes' article is ineffective because witness testimony cannot be validated. Often Ehrenreich and Fuentes supply titles but no documentation. They present alleged experts with no names, disconnected assertives and carefully select only biased witnesses.
As Mrs. Johnson waits in the doctor’s office, she hopes to finally hear after two years of trying to conceive that she is expecting. A very successful twenty eight year old woman feels enthusiastic about her possibility of being pregnant, after four years of marriage. Dr. Neil enters the room and began to inform her that she has stage three ovarian cancer and he would like to start treatment as soon possible. Mrs. Johnson looks at the doctor and says,”No treatment, I know my faith in God will heal me.” Mrs. Johnson believes that God and her faith will heal her body, because it is a temple that God has made. The beliefs of different religions can lead to unnecessary
However, Gauthier & Tarr and Diamond & Carey’s methodologies have come under much criticism especially from Robbins and McKone. Robbins and McKone argue that they have found major flaws in the expert hypothesis. The differing views of these psychologists are outlined in fiery academic exchanges (Robbins & McKone 2007), (McKone & Robbins, 2007), (Gauthier & Baukach, 2007). As a
Twain claims to have used a scientific method in his research but that is still debatable. The reader must determine if this is another fictional story backed by the humorous satire Twain used, or was it truly an authentic research study. When this piece was written Twain was already established as writer. He attempts to establish ethos with the statement “That is to say, I have subjected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result” (Twain 2012).