This camera seemed to power up normally, and acquired an IP address as expected. However, when I logged on to the camera with a web browser, all it gave was a “404 Not Found” error. Also, when I tried to use the Veo Observer Studio software from the CD that supposedly came with the camera, the software said that there was a “Protocol Version Error.”

This led me to believe that someone may have tried to upgrade the firmware in the camera, and either disconnected before completing the upgrade, or loaded the wrong firmware. So all I had to do was find the correct firmware, as well as the correct utility for loading it onto the camera. This turned out to be a lot more difficult than I thought. The manufacturer (Veo) no longer exists, and all I could find on the Web were complaints from users who are just as SOL as I was. Fortunately, I stumbled on an obscure website that turned out to contain a repository of old device drivers, one of which happened to be the Veo Setup Utility and the Veo firmware. I was then able to load the firmware successfully, and then log on to the camera and see the video stream from it. I’ve decided to host the Veo Setup Utility and the latest firmware here on my website, in case someone else comes across the same problems.

During my search for Veo software, I also found that someone has written a clever Perl module for communicating with the camera (making it usable from virtually any OS), and another person has written Java code for it, too. This inspired me to make a quick-and-dirty C++ application based on the Perl code. My little program controls pretty much all the features of the Veo observer, and displays the image stream from the camera. Here’s the program and the source code for it.

Here we see the fully-eclipsed Moon, and the bright star Regulus above it:

To the left of the Moon we can see Saturn. If you look very closely, you can see a tiny “bulge” on the lower left side of Saturn. This is actually Titan, the largest moon in the Saturn system.

Now the Moon is coming out of the eclipse:

There are numerous programs out there that supposedly let you do this, but they all look very suspicious (as in spyware-ish), so I decided not to bother with any of them. Instead, I figured out a quick way of saving YouTube videos the manual way:

• When your Internet browser views a web page, it stores most of the page’s content in a “cache” folder on your hard drive, so that the page loads faster the next time you go to it. This includes pictures, script files, and videos. So, technically, when you view a YouTube video, it’s already saved on your hard drive! The important step is to find the video in your cache folder.
• If you’re using Internet Explorer, the cache folder should be located at “C:\Documents and Settings\yourname\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files“, where yourname is your Windows login name.
  If you’re using Firefox, the cache folder should be located at “C:\Documents and Settings\yourname\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\default\Cache“.
• It’s a bit complicated to actually find the video you want in the cache folder, since neither Internet Explorer and Firefox give cached items proper file extensions. The best you can do here is sort the files by size, and look for files of a video-worthy size (several megabytes). Under Firefox, the files named _CACHE_nnn_ are special files, and not videos. A good method of doing this would be to clear your browser’s cache, then go to YouTube, view the video you want (and only that video), then go to the cache folder: the largest file in the cache should be the video. Now copy it out of the cache folder and rename it with a “.flv” extension, and you’ve got it!
• Now, to play back the saved FLV files is the remaining road block. Windows Media Player will not play these videos; neither will QuickTime, or Real Player. The best solution I’ve found is to use FLV Player, which is a small standalone utility just for playing FLV files.

I used FileZilla all the time to transfer files to and from my website(s). And, weighing in at just over 3MB, it was a compact program, considering the number of features it supported.

But the developers of FileZilla just had to mess with it. For “version 3.0″ of the program, they decided to completely rewrite it from the ground up, for the sole purpose of making the program “cross-platform.” And so we see yet another example of great software going astray.

The obvious point is that Linux already has plenty of FTP clients! Anyone who uses Linux already has a favorite FTP client, and would not be eagerly anticipating the release of FileZilla for Linux, making the entire effort marginally useful.

And for Windows users, the rewrite of FileZilla came at a devastating price. The package now weighs in at over 10MB (unacceptable for a simple FTP client), and its user interface is now painfully sluggish, not to mention buggy, and actually less feature-rich than before.

Is “software bloat” an inevitable destination in the lifetime of a program? Like a red-giant star that expands when it runs out of fuel, is all useful software destined to end up a bloated monstrosity?

Despite the inconvenience of having my credit card account shut down, and being issued a new card, I applaud the support staff for taking their users’ security so seriously. But this incident also got me thinking about the current level of security used by online retailers, as well as online banking and credit card websites. After all, how exactly did a would-be identity thief get a hold of my credit card number? All of my online purchases are through very reputable stores like Amazon and Newegg. All the items I purchase are completely legal — i.e. no kinky horse-on-girl porn from shady Russian websites. All of my transactions are over SSL, and I’m quite sure that I don’t have a keylogger installed on my system.

This leads to one of the following conclusions, arranged from least to most likely:

• Someone cracked my SSL session with an online retailer. This is astronomically unlikely, but still possible.
• Someone hacked one of the online retailer’s servers, and retrieved the raw database of credit card numbers for thousands of customers.
• Someone hacked one of the company’s servers, and retrieved password hashes for thousands of users, and decoded the passwords at his/her own leisure. If the hacker is an employee of the company, no hacking would even be necessary. The database would be readily available for copying and selling to the black market.

As the incredibly eye-opening Ophcrack project has shown, old-style passwords are no longer safe (i.e. passwords shorter than 15 characters, consisting only of letters and numbers). Any Windows system administrator who hasn’t disabled LM Hashes has been living in a cave, and any Linux administrator who isn’t using shadow passwords is almost equally neglectful. And of course, any administrator or developer who stores users’ passwords in plain-text format should be fired on the spot, and have the infraction recorded as a felony in his criminal record.

The point is, many forms of identity theft can be prevented by using strong passwords — that is, passwords that are generously long (15 or more characters), that contain uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and special characters like $, %, &, space, and maybe even extëndéð Åscíí characters, or even Unicode!

The question is, are online retailers and banking websites “ready” for strong passwords?

No!

At least that’s the short answer. As an example, let’s take a look at what happened when I tried to change my password on my banking website, which happens to be Huntington. I typed in a strong password with letters, numbers, and special characters, and this is what I got:
I beg your pardon?! Of all the websites in the world, banking sites should be the most secure by definition. And yet, here we are with Huntington’s website telling us to limit our password to 16 characters, and not use any special characters!

In Huntington’s defense, they do provide an additional level of security by asking a secret question (in addition to the password), if a user logs in from a different IP.

I can understand enforcing minimum requirements for password strength, which Huntington does, but setting limitations on password strength? What gives?

Let’s move on to my credit card website, which is Chase. Attempting to change my password there, I get the following:
Again, they tell us not to use special characters, and to limit the length of our password. Even though the length limitation here is 32 characters, my question is why is there a length limitation? And why can’t special characters be used?

If the excuse is that the underlying software that runs the website doesn’t support passwords with special characters, then the software is in serious need of revision. The password hashing algorithm should not care about what characters are passed into it.

I’m a big fan of passphrases, too — that is, passwords like “How many licks does it take?” or “Density = Mass/Volume” or “E = m*c^2″, all of which are much stronger than passwords of equal length with just letters and numbers. But, since these websites don’t allow passphrases, I’m forced to come up with a weaker password that fits all their guidelines and restrictions. Even worse, since each website may have slightly different restrictions on passwords, I’m forced to come up with a least-common-denominator password if I want to use one password for multiple sites.

With this kind of “password mess” on the most secure internet websites, it’s no wonder ordinary users become confused about what kind of passwords they are and aren’t allowed to use, and default to using common, easy-to-remember passwords that are just waiting to be cracked by malicious individuals.

I wish to notify you that your name appeared in the codicil and last statement of your deceased relation, and you entitled to his fund of US$19,900,000.00 deposited with a bank here in Nigeria. I will advise you about the steps on how to redeem the inheritance funds from the bank.
Reply to me on time because the bank is waiting for you to show up and claim the funds.

Regards,
Barrister David Mark.
Legal Head, Wester and Co. Chambers.
14 board way Victoria Island, Lagos.

And my response:

Dear Barrister Mark,

Thank you for notifying me of the funds bestowed unto me by my late “relation.” As you know, my Nigerian heritage is very important to me, and I am pleased that my relation chose you to handle his will.

Fortunately I have a very simple resolution for this situation:
I hereby authorize you to donate the entire sum of my inheritance to a charity that helps fight the AIDS epidemic in your country of Nigeria and its neighbors. I will leave the choice of charity up to you — we’re all in this together. Naturally, you may withdraw any amount you see fit from this fund to pay for your legal fees. I have the utmost confidence that you will be fair and just in handling this money.

Once again, sir, I am in great debt to you for bringing this to my attention.
Best regards,

Dmitry Brant

On another Motorola hacking website, modmymoto.com, I found a vastly superior program called P2KTools. This utility allows you to access absolutely everything the phone can possibly support. It even lets you switch communications between P2K, AT, and Flash mode.

Best of all, P2KTools doesn’t require PST Phone Programmer to operate. Apparently, PST is a proprietary Motorola application, and is illegal for distribution to the public. The good folks at hacktherazr.com fail to mention this clearly (naughty!).

When downloading P2KTools from modmymoto.com, make sure you get the latest version, which is 3.0.8 at this time. For some reason they have multiple earlier versions also available in their Downloads section. Are they trying to confuse people?

Once again, to communicate properly with the RAZR V3xx, go into the program’s Settings, and check the “P2K05″ check box under “P2K Settings.” As we learned earlier, the V3xx only supports the newer P2K05 command set, and will not work with the regular P2K commands.

Update: I found a better program for RAZR hacking!

This is a quick-start guide for anyone who wants to start hacking away at the RAZR V3xx. For some reason, other guides that I’ve found on the web either don’t apply to this particular model, or often contradict themselves and drove me into further confusion.

I recently “upgraded” my cell phone to a V3xx, with AT&T as my provider. Naturally I wanted to see what kind of features I could access within the phone, and to what extent I could customize its skin, sounds and interface.

Here is the exact sequence of steps I took to get my phone connected to my PC and start modifying its filesystem:

• Go to hacktherazr.com, which is a site with plenty of loosely-knit resources for hacking the RAZR. The only drawback of the site is that it doesn’t contain any information specific to the V3xx, and all of their “get-started” guides only pertain to earlier models.
• From the site’s “Start here” guide (not from their “Downloads” section), download the Motorola USB Driver Installer, install the drivers, and follow the rest of the “Start here” guide.
• From their “Downloads” section, download and install “PST 7.2.5,” which is a utility from Motorola to facilitate communication with your phone. Make sure you apply the “patch” included in the Zip file! Installing this tool will probably require you to restart your computer.
• The last tool that you’ll need is called P2K Commander. But do not use the version that they have on their site — it’s outdated and will not communicate with the V3xx! To get the latest version of P2K Commander, go to the author’s website and download it from there. As of this writing, the latest version is 4.9.D. The author requires you to register in his forums to download the files, but registration is free.
• To prepare your phone for communicating with your PC, you must set its USB mode to “data connection.” To do this, go to Main Menu → Settings → Connection → USB Settings, and set the Default Connection to “Data Connection.”
• On your PC, launch the PST Phone Programmer before you plug in your phone! Let PST load completely before plugging in.
• Now plug in your phone, and give your PC a few seconds to recognize it. Then give PST a few more seconds to configure the phone for communication. You should hear the phone’s “charging” sound two or three times as it’s being configured, as well as the PC’s USB plug/unplug sound.
• Now you’re ready to launch P2K Commander, so launch it. P2K Commander is a gateway to the phone’s internal filesystem. But, before doing anything in this tool, click on its “Options” menu, and check the “Use P2k05″ check box! This is the critical step, since the V3xx uses the P2k05 command set, unlike its predecessors.
• Finally, you’re ready to use P2K Commander to your heart’s content. From this point on, you’re welcome to follow the other guides outlined at hacktherazr.com, since most of them still apply.

Here is a very simple example of what could be done with P2K Commander and the RAZR V3xx:

Changing the secondary display image

When the phone is opened, its secondary display (the smaller display on the outside) only displays the AT&T logo. But suppose you wanted it to display something that was meaningful to you, such as this:
To change this graphic, use P2K Commander to navigate to the phone’s file system (”/a”) and go to the “mobile” directory.

In this directory, there is a file called cl.gif. That’s the file that gets displayed in the secondary display! This means that you can replace this file with whatever you want (as long as it’s called cl.gif), and it will be shown! Of course, keep in mind that this file must be a GIF file with dimensions of 96 x 80. Et voilà:
Short of reprogramming the phone’s firmware, there’s no end to the customizations you can make to your V3xx by simply editing or replacing certain files in the phone’s filesystem using P2K Commander. As always, don’t forget to back up any files you edit or replace. Enjoy!

I found a very interesting discussion thread on the JREF Forum that details the various iterations of McTaggart’s website over the last several months. Apparently, every “intention experiment” promoted by the website is referred to as “the first intention experiment.” When that experiment fails or produces inconclusive data, the next experiment is called the “first,” and so on.

The “experiments” themselves appear to be completely nonsensical. For example, one of the experiments was to measure the emissions of “biophotons” from plants that were being intended to glow by distant observers. According to the website:

Our first experiments examined the alteration in the tiny light — called biophoton emissions — being emitted from living things. We chose to look at this tiny current of light, because it is infinitely more subtle than, say, cellular growth rate.

Of course! Why measure something tangible, when you can measure something “infinitely more subtle”!

The current incarnation of the Intention website doesn’t even brag about the results of the experiments anymore, but instead directs visitors to purchase McTaggart’s books and DVDs, and join an online community that’s reminiscent of some kind of sad, pathetic support group for people who are uncomfortable saying, “won’t you pray for me?”

Here’s an example of the Intention website’s community posts:

…In 2001 I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. I had a mastectomy & chemo (experimental) that just about killed me. I had a bad reaction that left me with nerve damage and constant bone/joint/muscle stiffness & pain. Last week I had my annual mammogram on the remaining breast. I rec. a letter saying there was a “suspicious” area, so I have to return on 8-8-07 for more films/sonogram. I would really appreciate as many members as possible to send the intent that all will be fine…

Wait a minute… for some reason that has a very familiar ring to it. What if we replace the word “intent” with the word “prayer”? Isn’t this the exact same thing?!

Who are they trying to kid? Instead of praying to an invisible supernatural deity, they’re simply praying to an invisible supernatural “field”! Well, I’m afraid the old adage still applies: Nothing fails like prayer.

The moment I read the back cover of The Field, I knew what I was getting myself into:

Science has recently begun to prove what ancient myth and religion have always espoused: There may be such a thing as a life force.

Naturally, I become suspicious of a book that demeans and cheapens science by putting religion on a pedestal, and claiming that “ancient myth” knew something all along that science is just now discovering.

The idea of “uniting science and spirituality” is nothing new. Whenever a new buzzword gets coined in science (especially physics), within a month or so, someone will publish a book relating the buzzword with auras, spirits, energy fields, and how anyone can harness the new buzzword to improve their health, marriage, and credit rating. The hot topic in this case is the zero-point field, or more generally, quantum mechanics.

Essentially, both of McTaggart’s books are opinions on various studies and articles published over the years that, according to McTaggart, show a connection between the will (or “intention”) of the mind, and physical reality. With the logical agility of an acrobat (albeit a retarded one), she concludes that, through the effects of quantum mechanics, it’s possible to influence the world around us using nothing but our intentions, hence the “life-changing” reviews associated with the books.

To begin, it doesn’t help that McTaggart is an “investigative journalist” (instead of, perhaps, a physicist?), with no formal training in physics or biology, which are the very subjects she’s writing about.

Nevertheless, McTaggart digs up an impressive handful of studies whose results are certainly curious, as long as we interpret the results the way she wants us to. But then, like most other authors in the genre, she blatantly disregards the vast, overwhelming body of evidence that proves that people do not have psychic powers, that we cannot move objects with our minds, and that we cannot change the world through our intention alone.

Even if we suppose that the results cited by McTaggart are in some way anomalous, there’s no reason to assume that ESP or some other paranormal influence was involved. This kind of assumption would only be made by someone who is predisposed to believe in such things to begin with. A competent researcher would instead look for more plausible factors that may have skewed the results, and inevitably such a factor will eventually be found.

Appeal to Vanity

People like to feel smart. And books like this appeal to this desire. The average casual reader who is intrigued by quantum physics would love to understand the staggering complexity of the science surrounding it. If only there was a shortcut to understanding quantum physics at the same level as the researchers at Cambridge or MIT….

Unfortunately, there is no such shortcut. Anyone who claims to understand quantum mechanics without any formal training is either misinformed, deluded, or has an agenda. Quantum physics is an extremely complicated subject. It’s quite possibly the most hard-to-understand theory in all of science, ever. To even begin to grasp it, one would require several years of advanced mathematics beyond the undergraduate level, as well as a very firm grasp of classical physics.

But then, a book like this comes along and suggests that it can make you understand quantum physics in a paragraph! And not just quantum physics, but how it relates to any number of completely unrelated topics. It makes the reader exclaim, “Wow, I can understand quantum physics in a day! Sucks to be the losers who spent so many years actually studying the subject!”

People also seem to like the fuzzy, addictive feeling of “understanding” or “enlightenment,” even if the feeling is completely false and unwarranted. Well, books like this do just that — provide the reader with a feeling of enlightenment without presenting any actual science or any useful information. The best analogy for this would be mental masturbation — tell the readers who are likely to believe this stuff exactly what they want to hear, and they’ll eat it up like candy.

But in the end, after reading this type of book, all the reader “understands” is just a cleverly-worded regurgitation of the same old pseudo-intellectual nonsense that has no bearing in reality. It is certainly not quantum mechanics.

Recall Richard Feynman’s famous quote, “If you think you understand quantum theory, you don’t understand quantum theory.” McTaggart (the investigative journalist) thinks she understands quantum theory.

Taking Analogies Too Far

Now, to be fair, a lot of scientific concepts, including aspects of quantum theory, can be easily explained to a layperson using analogies with commonplace objects and phenomena. But any analogy is liable to be taken a bit too literally.

For example, in electrical engineering it’s a highly useful analogy to compare an electrical circuit to a system of pipes with water. The flowing water is electrical current, a pump is a battery, a one-way valve is a diode, a very thin pipe is a resistor, and a tank is a capacitor. However, if taken too literally, the analogy falls apart. If a pipe cracks, water will leak out of it; this does not happen in an electrical circuit. Also, the motion of water in a pipe is caused by the physical pressure of water molecules on each other; in an electrical circuit, the energy is propagated by fields produced by each electron.

Taking analogies too literally is dangerous, and ultimately paves the way towards pseudoscience and voodoo. As you may have guessed, McTaggart takes quantum analogies to the extreme, and beyond.

The biggest error anyone can make in trying to understand quantum mechanics is to make the extrapolation that, since quantum effects occur on quantum scales, they must also occur on large scales. They don’t!

For example, in quantum mechanics, the position of a particle is defined by a complex wave function, the square of which represents a probability density — the “chance” of finding the particle in a given area of space. A naïve interpretation of this would be that “there’s always a slight chance of finding any particle at any point in the universe.”

As profound as that may seem, it only applies on a quantum scale. It does not mean that something as large as a watermelon, or a baseball, or a blood cell can suddenly blink out of existence and reappear somewhere else in the universe!

Similarly, the concept of quantum superposition refers to the idea that, before a particle is observed, it exists in a “superposition” of possible states, and only “collapses” to a certain state once it’s observed. From this, McTaggart makes the generous extrapolation that, since our mind is “the observer,” we can choose which state something will be in when we observe it, thereby creating our own reality!

And finally, the zero-point field refers to the nonzero energy of pure vacuum, the existence of which is a requirement of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. But just because the zero-point field isn’t fully understood doesn’t mean that it must be the unifying force of all things in the universe (whatever that means)! And it takes an even greater leap of logic to suggest that our intentions (patterns of tiny electrical impulses) can have an effect on the zero-point field anywhere outside of our brain.

Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Pauli, and Planck must all be spinning in their graves — I doubt that any of them intended for their theories to be so grossly misinterpreted and misapplied. There is nothing in quantum theory that states that any quantum effects occur on a macroscopic scale. To state otherwise would be intellectually dishonest.

You Can’t Always Get What You Want

Here’s where I get a little personal. To an actual scientist, this kind of book is more than just innocent fun and games — it’s actually insulting; it’s a slap in the face to anyone with the slightest scientific background. Some say that religion is the enemy of science — well I think this is way more dangerous than religion. At least religion doesn’t claim to be scientific in nature. But these “theories” go out of their way to show how they’re “backed up” by science!

So then, what should we tell the thousands of children in the war-torn countries of Africa who are dying of starvation and disease? Surely they “wish” for food and medicine every minute of their miserable day; surely they “intend” for a world of love, joy, and prosperity for themselves, so… where is it? Are they not intending hard enough? How can we, in good conscience, even entertain such a despicable idea? McTaggart apparently can. The message in her books is clear: you can intend your world into existence; and if it’s not working, you’re not intending hard enough.

But did McTaggart “intend” her own prosperity into existence? Of course not! She simply wrote a bestseller that happens to appeal to the wants, needs, and fears of suckers gullible enough to believe her.

Here’s a tip: if you have $20 that you don’t need, donate it to a charity of your choice, and let McTaggart eat a little less caviar for dinner.

All that The Field and The Intention Experiment boils down to is the age-old quest for the genie in a bottle, or rather the embodiment of human laziness: “you can get whatever you want by wishing for it.” Sadly, this is not how the world works.

Resources

The articles that McTaggart cites in her “amazing” exposition are either studies done by people who already believe in this stuff, or simply articles that talk about actual studies and reinterpret their results as they see fit, much like McTaggart has done, to a second degree.

It’s sufficient to examine just one of McTaggart’s sources to see the quality of data she’s working with:

F. Sicher, E. Targ et al., “A randomised double-blind study of the effect of distant healing in a population with advanced AIDS: report of a small scale study,” Western Journal of Medicine, 1998; 168(6): 356-63

This was a study where 40 patients with advanced AIDS were selected, some of them randomly chosen to receive “remote healing” treatments, while the rest continuing their course of regular treatment. According to the study, subjects who were “healed … acquired significantly fewer new AIDS-defining illnesses,” plus other positive effects, although there were “no significant differences in CD4+ counts” (darn).

Upon reading the abstract of this paper, numerous glaring red flags emerge. The most obvious of these, I think, is that the healers who performed the “psychic healing” were “located throughout the United States during the study,” meaning that the healing was completely uncontrolled.
Furthermore, if the healers and the subjects “never met,” how did the healers know where to direct their “intention for health and well-being”? Did they direct their intention at a photo of the subject? And if so, how does “The Field” know to redirect the intention from the photo to the real person? Wouldn’t this be a line of bullshit that’s even crazier than McTaggart is willing to push?

Curiously enough, there is a note from the editor of the Western Journal of Medicine (Linda Hawes Clever) at the top of the paper:

…Does the paper prove that prayer works? No. The authors call for more research, as do we and the reviewers, for a number of reasons. We note that the study was relatively short and analysed rather few patients. No treatment-related mechanisms for the effects were posited. The statistical methods can be criticized….

We can tell from the editor’s tone that she was being charitable by publishing this paper in her journal, and inserted her note to avoid embarrassment. If studies like this are the “definitive evidence” that McTaggart uses to support her claims, then her theories don’t have a leg to stand on.

Return to Reality

On the other end of the spectrum (the rational one), here is a brief list of studies that I have found that show conclusively that prayer, intentions, and “distant healing” do not work, as well as papers that show why studies attempting to measure effects from prayer are fundamentally suspect:

• Abbot NC, et al. Spiritual healing as a therapy for chronic pain: a randomized, clinical trial. “…there were no statistically significant differences between healing and control groups…“
• Astin JA, et al. The efficacy of distant healing for human immunodeficiency virus–results of a randomized trial. This one is especially relevant, since it has Elisabeth Targ’s name as one of the authors! “Distant healing or prayer from a distance does not appear to improve selected clinical outcomes in HIV patients…“
• Aviles JM, et al. Intercessory prayer and cardiovascular disease progression in a coronary care unit population: a randomized controlled trial. “As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes after hospitalization in a coronary care unit.“
• Benson H, et al. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. This study actually showed a reverse effect: “certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications“!
• Cleland JA, et al. A pragmatic, three-arm randomised controlled trial of spiritual healing for asthma in primary care. “Spiritual healing does not appear to have any specific affect [sic] on patient asthma related quality of life.“
• Gaudia G. Searching in the Darkness: About Prayer and Medical Cures. “We scientists make a great mistake when we agree that there may be value in investigating the potential of prayer as a cure.“
• Harkness EF, et al. A randomized trial of distant healing for skin warts. “Distant healing from experienced healers had no effect on the number or size of patients’ warts.“
• Hobbins PG. Compromised ethical principles in randomised clinical trials of distant, intercessory prayer. “…many studies did not meet basic ethical standards required of clinical trials of biophysical interventions, making application of their results ethically problematic…”
• Matthews DA, et al. Effects of intercessory prayer on patients with rheumatoid arthritis. “Supplemental, distant intercessory prayer offers no additional benefits.“
• Matthews WJ, et al. The effects of intercessory prayer, positive visualization, and expectancy on the well-being of kidney dialysis patients. “The effects of intercessory prayer and transpersonal positive visualization cannot be distinguished from the effect of expectancy.“
• Sloan RP, et al. Science, medicine, and intercessory prayer. “…these studies claim findings incompatible with current views of the physical universe and consciousness…“
• Walker SR, et al. Intercessory prayer in the treatment of alcohol abuse and dependence: a pilot investigation. “Intercessory prayer did not demonstrate clinical benefit in the treatment of alcohol abuse…“
• Wirth DP, et al. Complementary healing therapies. Once again, in this study the opposite effect was observed: the people being “healed” got worse: “Results showed significance for the treated versus the control group but in the opposite direction from that expected.“

…but what do I know. After all, I’m not a fancy investigative journalist!