Prayer doubles IVF success rate

New Scientist ^ | 09:53 05 October 01 | Emma Young

[PatrickHenry]

"Every time I put the line down I would say a Hail Mary, and every time I said a Hail Mary, I would catch a fish."
-- Fredo to Anthony, the Godfather

[Gumlegs]

Interesting, if somewhat disquieting. I mean disquieting in the sense that I was taught that petitioning for any given "x" in prayer was a misuse of prayer. We pray for guidance and to accept God's will, do we not?

Anyway, I'm sure someone is out there somewhere attempting to replicate the experiment.

[AndrewC]

We pray for guidance and to accept God's will, do we not?

That would be "lead us not into temptation", however prior to that Jesus taught us to pray for our daily bread.

[Physicist]

Comments, explanations?

My comment is that the true test would be to repeat the experiment, but have the pilgrims praying for half the pregnancies to fail. Will the correlation be positive or negative?

The most interesting explanation would be one from the Catholic church. According to the Pope, IVF is immoral. This must be a real dilemma for them.

[Gumlegs]

I would still hesitate to equate "our daily bread" with a favorable outcome in a medical procedure.

[Nebullis]

See the CDC summaries. Note that the paper cites a live birth rate while the study measured pregnancy rates. (5% difference). Rates using donor eggs are significantly higher.

[Nebullis]

Stem cells are being found everywhere.

I thought it was obvious I was referring to embryonic stem cells as only they involve the destruction of the embryo.

[AndrewC]

This must be a real dilemma for them.

Perhaps you missed my answer to Nebullis, which is essentially that praying for a good outcome of a bad situation does not equate to supporting the bad situation. However, it would be bad to pray for the demise of a life. Scientists may think that way, but Christians aren't supposed to pray that way.

[AndrewC]

I thought it was obvious I was referring to embryonic stem cells as only they involve the destruction of the embryo.

It was. That is why I answered with the better way.

[AndrewC]

Note that the paper cites a live birth rate while the study measured pregnancy rates. (5% difference). Rates using donor eggs are significantly higher.

I see no way of reconciling the different data sets.

[AndrewC]

I would still hesitate to equate "our daily bread" with a favorable outcome in a medical procedure.

The Lord's Prayer guides us to

1. Praise God
2. Affirm Obediance
3. Request our human needs be met, Spiritual and Physical
4. Request forgiveness of our sins and affirm that we will do likewise to others
5. Request guidance
6. Praise God

I think it meets the third item.

[Askel5]

None of the authors are employed by religious organizations, and we were not asked by any religious groups to conduct this trial, nor did we seek religious advice at any time.

I smell "faith-based funding" ...

(Just teasing...)

[Askel5]

This must be a real dilemma for them.

How so?

IVF is immoral. That does not mean that an omnipotent and merciful God can't bring forth something good from the Ubermensch's mistakes ... including human life, however inhuman is the forcing of some individuals to never know their natural parents or to be confected as part of a for-profit contract.

[Zon]

The study needs to be done again to honestly validate and for verification. By a different, non-affiliated group. (Not affiliated with the first team of researchers, 200 test group, or company that did the test.) Replication is the way to validate objective/scientific testing. They should do tests with any people that pray -- not just Christians or even a belief in any religion. I would like to know how many people prayed in the fertility study and how many were in each group. Also, which, if any, groups were more effective.

There has been numerous replication tests (blind and double blind) that validate remote viewing does work. I proved to myself that associative remote viewing does work. 

I know remote healing is a "practice". I haven't looked at any test results that validate or refute its effectiveness. I have read a few discussions by people that do it. If you're interested here's a link to the discussion board. (Click the 'messages' link in the upper left sidebar.) You'll have to pose the questions. People on the forum will be able to provide information via their own experiences and links to more information. 

[Zon]

Hey folks. The people praying are doing something that they hope will help women get pregnant. That's it. Makes no validation of a God any more than it validates the existence of a consciously controlled universal computer. Which I happen to believe exists.

There has been numerous replication tests (blind and double blind) that validate remote viewing does work. I proved to myself that associative remote viewing does work. 

Prayer and/or religion had nothing to do with it. People of several denominations, atheists and agnostics alike are able to remote view.

I know remote healing is a "practice". I haven't looked at any test results to validate or refute its effectiveness. I have read a few discussions by people that do it. If you're interested here's a link to the discussion board. (Click the 'messages' link in the upper left sidebar.) You'll have to pose the questions. People on the forum will be able to provide information via their own experiences and links to more information. 

[Zon]

Interesting, if somewhat disquieting. I mean disquieting in the sense that I was taught that petitioning for any given "x" in prayer was a misuse of prayer. We pray for guidance and to accept God's will, do we not?

It seems obvious that it has nothing to do with any imagined God. It was the will of the women that wanted to get pregnant and the will of the people that prayed.

There has been numerous replication tests (blind and double blind) that validate remote viewing does work. I proved to myself that associative remote viewing does work. 

Prayer and/or religion had nothing to do with it. People of several denominations, atheists and agnostics alike are able to remote view.

I know remote healing is a "practice". I haven't looked at any test results to validate or refute its effectiveness. I have read a few discussions by people that do it. If you're interested here's a link to the discussion board. (Click the 'messages' link in the upper left sidebar.) You'll have to pose the questions. People on the forum will be able to provide information via their own experiences and links to more information. 

[StoneColdGOP]

OK, but I don't get it. They pray for the invitro to work, that's all well and good I suppose.

But why not pray for the old fashioned bedroom fertilization method to work?

"Dear Lord,

Please bless and watch over our horizontal mambo as we attempt to become parents.
Allow us the strength and stamina to endure the task at hand as long as is necessary.
Give us the tencity to try again if we fail. And to try again and again and again and again and again...
Bless us with the inspired will to enter into fruitful procreative frenzy at any time.
Watch over and guide us as in this task, and at least make it good for both of us.

In your name, Amen."

[Nebullis]

...the task at hand ...

This may just be their problem.

[Zon]

My comment is that the true test would be to repeat the experiment, but have the pilgrims praying for half the pregnancies to fail.

Women want to get pregnant. Regular intercourse failed. IVF increased rate of pregnancy. Multiple prayers increased IVF rate of pregnancy.

Women don't want to get pregnant. Condoms and the pill are 99.99% effective. Condoms and the pill replaced with multiple prayers. Pregnancy rate increases 100,000%.

Conclusion, obviously man made creations -- IVF, condoms and the pill -- are more effective than prayer.

However, assuming that the IVF test can be validated via replication, it demonstrates the power of conscious mind/body unit to control existence to its benefit. Of course, we already know that the conscious mind/body unit controls civilization on Earth. Unfortunately, much of the control is in the form of destruction dumped on the people by governments, media, bogus environmentalists, religion, academia and government-colluding big business.

"None of the authors are employed by religious organizations, and we were not asked by any religious groups to conduct this trial, nor did we seek religious advice at any time. "

The increased pregnancy rate is substantial. Kept in the objective/scientific realm where it will be validated via replication opens up the people's awareness that there is a whole area of human conscious control that science has yet to seriously research and create benefits for individuals, society and humanity.

For twenty years the scientific community has turned a "political"-agenda-blind-eye to the numerous validated/replicated remote viewing tests and research. Political agendas and their support structures are poised to collapse.

The most interesting explanation would be one from the Catholic church. According to the Pope, IVF is immoral. This must be a real dilemma for them.

It was neither Satan nor God that caused the increased pregnancies. Interesting explanation? ... Boring rationalization.

[Godel]

Prayer can double the success rate of IVF treatments, according to a double blind study published in the respected Journal of Reproductive Medicine.

This is interesting, especially considering the fact that many religious groups consider IVF to go against God's will, due to the fact that it results in unused embryos that will be destroyed.

If God doesn't like IVF why does praying to him make it more successful?