About a billion dollars a year is now spent on “magnet therapy,” which is claimed to eliminate many symptoms and diseases. Basic scientific principles indicate that all of this money is wasted.

About a year ago Leonard Finegold at Drexel University and I decided to look into the controversial field (no pun intended) of “magnet therapy.” As a physics professor, Finegold knows a bit about magnets and magnetic fields. As a physician and former research chairman, I know a bit about therapy and medical research. Perhaps a physicist and a physician could shed some light on this interesting topic. We knew that magnets were touted as a treatment for many medical conditions and we knew that they were popular. But we were both quite surprised to learn just how popular they are. In the U.S.A., their annual sales are estimated at $300 million (Brody 2000), and globally more than a billion dollars (Weintraub 1999). You can get a rough idea of the magnitude of the magnet healing industry by doing a Google search for magnet healing. A search in January 2006 yielded 459,000 Web pages, many of them claiming that magnets have almost miraculous healing power. Do they? Professor Finegold and I reviewed the literature on magnet therapy and found very little supporting evidence. An abbreviated version of our review was recently published in the British Medical Journal (Finegold and Flamm 2006). What follows are a few comments on the magnet healing industry, a brief synopsis of our BMJ paper, and a look at magnet therapy from a theoretical point of view.

Magnet Therapy Is Big Business

If you try the Internet searching experiment described above you will notice that in addition to almost half a million pages dealing with magnet therapy, Google automatically provides a list of “sponsored links.” Your computer screen will fill with the names of companies that have paid to help you find their site. What do these sites offer? If you click on magnetsandhealth.com, you will learn that “magnets help to flush out toxins in our body” and that “our magnet products have both beauty and health benefits, they increase blood flow and they increase the oxygen level in the body.” Really? They also point out that their magnets are small and mobile, which “allows you to heal the ailments of yourself and your family without having major interruptions in your life and routine. You also get all the benefits without having to go for expensive sessions with a magnetic therapist or having to take expensive courses of drugs which can also have harmful side effects.” The message seems quite clear: Why bother with doctors and medicines when magnets are safe and effective?

Another of the scores of sponsored links is magnetictherapymagnets.com. This site is interesting because, in addition to selling dozens of magnetic healing devices for humans, it doesn't forget about Fido. For only $11.95 plus shipping they will send you an amazing pet collar that will “keep your cat or dog in excellent health and vitality with constant magnetic therapy.” My wife and I are now kicking ourselves for spending thousands of dollars on veterinary care over the past several years. If we had only bought that collar!

I don't mean to pick on these two companies or imply that their claims are any more outrageous than any others. In fact, there are now hundreds of companies selling similar devices and making similar claims.

Among the companies touting magnet therapy I was surprised to find the Sharper Image, a seemingly reputable outfit. They offer a device called a “Dual-Head Personal Massager with Magnetic Therapy.” It is somewhat phallus-shaped, small enough to fit in a purse, and claims to be a “discreet personal massager with two independent vibrating heads.” That certainly seems enticing enough, but they insist that it does far more that your average vibrator. “A smaller pinpoint node enhances its massage with magnetic therapy for focused treatment.” Hmm . . . magnet therapy for focused treatment.

Some companies actually claim that their magnets prevent, reverse, and cure cancer. For example, at one site purveyors of cancer-curing magnets will sell you, for only $2,595, the “Dr. Philpott Designed and Approved Polar Power Super Bed Grid.” According to the site, “This is the strongest, deepest penetrating, permanent static magnet, biomagnetic therapy device available anywhere that we know of. It is used in many of Dr. Philpotts’ magnetic research protocols for prevention and reversal of cancer and other serious disease that requires a full systemic deep penetrating treatment of the whole body.” Similarly absurd claims can be found at stopcancer.com/magnets.htm.

Do the legions of magnet therapists and magnet purveyors really believe the incredible claims that they make? Are they well-meaning but misguided individuals or con artists willing to say anything to make a buck? Both types are most likely involved.

Studies on Magnet Therapy

The overall conclusion of our BMJ review was stated in the first sentence, “We believe there is a worldwide epidemic of useless magnet therapy” (Finegold and Flamm 2006). As you can imagine, this statement was not well-received in the magnet healing community. We found that many studies on “magnet therapy” were published in “alternative” journals as opposed to peer-reviewed medical journals. Many studies included too few patients to reach statistically significant conclusions. Others had problems with their placebo control groups. For example, study subjects realized that they were wearing a magnetic bracelet rather than a placebo bracelet when it attracted paper clips or other small metal objects. In light of the vast amounts of money spent each year on supposedly therapeutic magnets, surprisingly few legitimate randomized controlled trials have been conducted to evaluate their efficacy. An excellent critique of magnet therapy by Quackwatch founder Stephen Barrett, M.D., can be found at quackwatch.org.

Is Magnet Therapy Even Theoretically Possible?

In reality, many people find anecdotal reports of healing, particularly from athletes or other trusted celebrities, to be more convincing than scientific studies.

There are certainly many people touting magnet therapy. But is there, even theoretically, any way that magnets could have any healing effect? In our BMJ review we restricted our comments to typical magnetic devices claimed to have therapeutic value: these use “static” magnets like those used to attach paper notes to a refrigerator door. In this context, static means nonmoving and has nothing to do with static electricity. Moving magnets or pulsed electromagnets can create electric fields and electromagnetic radiation that could have some effect on living tissue. In contrast, a typical nonmoving magnet produces only a magnetic field. Is there anything in the human body that is affected by magnetic fields? Surprisingly, the answer appears to be no. This seems counterintuitive since most people know that oxygen in our blood is carried by hemoglobin and that hemoglobin contains iron. This is why iron tablets are often recommended for the treatment of anemia. However, the iron in hemoglobin is not ferromagnetic (see badscience.net). If hemoglobin contained ferromagnetic iron it would be simple to separate red blood cells from other bloods cells with a magnet. Several studies have shown that static magnetic fields do not affect blood flow (see hfienberg.com/clips/magnet.htm and quackwatch.org). Perhaps more important, if hemoglobin contained ferromagnetic iron people might explode or be flung across the room when exposed to the extraordinarily powerful magnetic field of a MRI scan. For a fascinating look at things that can go wrong when ferromagnetic materials get too close to the powerful magnetic field of an MRI machine, visit http://mripractice.tripod.com/mrpractice/id69.htm and simplyphysics.com/flying_objects.html.

However, for the sake of argument, what if some effect of magnets on human tissue could be demonstrated? What is the likelihood that it would be a therapeutic or healing effect? Probably slim to nil. By analogy, consider chemical compounds. The number of known chemical compounds is on the order of ten million. However, only a handful have ever been shown to have any therapeutic effects. Yet millions are toxic. It would be most unwise to eat or drink anything found on the shelves of a typical chemistry lab. If a magnet had an effect on human tissue, there is no reason to believe that it would necessarily be a healing effect.

Moreover, even the rare chemical compound that has healing effects usually does so only in very specific dose ranges. Almost any prescription drug can harm or kill you if you ingest enough of it. If, theoretically, a magnet had some effect on human tissue and if, astoundingly, the effect was beneficial rather than toxic, would one not expect there to be an optimal dosage? Yet, advertised healing magnets vary widely in their field strength. Many magnet purveyors claim that the more powerful the magnet, the greater the healing effect. This sounds good but makes little sense. All known effective therapies-including medications, x-rays, and lasers-become toxic or damaging at high levels. Nevertheless, the “magnet therapist” who debated me on BBC radio immediately after our paper was published chided me for not understanding that some magnet healers fail because they don't use strong enough magnets. She was so convincing that I think she actually believes this. The BBC radio host made a point of stating that the magnet therapist was “certified.” By whom, I wondered? The Intergalactic Association of Magnetic and Crystal Healers? After the show my colleague Professor Finegold, who was raised in the United Kingdom, informed me that the word “certified” has a derogatory mental health connotation in the UK. Perhaps the BBC host was not flattering my opponent.

Some magnet advocates contend that no one has conclusively proven that magnets cannot heal. Of course, they have it backwards. When it comes to healing, the burden of proof is on the seller, not the buyer. One is supposed to prove that a therapy works before marketing it to the public. If this were not true, medical companies could save billions by selling all sorts of untested drugs and devices. In reality, the government insists that every medicine and therapeutic device be meticulously tested for both safety and efficacy. This protective system generally works and only rarely do unsafe or ineffective products slip through and reach the public. Sadly, it seems that no such protective laws exist for magnets, crystals, amulets, magic potions, or other claimed miracle cures.

Finally, in the firestorm of criticism that followed the publication of our BMJ article, a frequent complaint was that I don't have an “open” mind. It might be more fair to say that my mind is open-but not to nonsense. If properly conducted research demonstrates a genuine healing effect of static magnets, I will cheerfully incorporate magnet therapy into my clinical practice. Until that time, I hope that parents will take their sick children to evidence-based physicians rather than “certified” magnet healers.

Notes:

1. Brody, J. 2000. Less pain: Is it in the magnets or in the mind? New York Times, November 28: F9.
2. Weintraub, M. 1999. Magnetic bio-stimulation in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: A novel intervention-a randomized, double-placebo crossover study. American Journal of Pain Management 9: 8-17.
3. Finegold, L., and B.L. Flamm. 2006. Magnet therapy: Extraordinary claims, but no proved benefits. British Medical Journal 332: 4.

You'll recall that this all started more than three years earlier, when The New York Times reported on October 2, 2001, that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had made an astonishing discovery: faith healing actually works. Physicians used meticulous scientific methods to demonstrate that distant Christian prayers from the United States, Canada, and Australia increased the success rate of infertility treatments in Korea by 100 percent.

The media touted the astounding results, but to some readers it sounded preposterous. Within weeks of the “miraculous” study’s publication it became clear that something was indeed very wrong. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM), which published the study (K.Y. Cha, D.P. Wirth, and R.A. Lobo, “Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer?” 46:781-787, 2001), not only refused to publish letters critical of it, they refused to even acknowledge their receipt. As months went by the JRM steadfastly refused to respond to e-mails, calls, or letters about the study.

The JRM editors were not the only ones remaining silent. The study’s authors also refused to respond to questions about their apparently miraculous results. In December 2001 an investigation of Columbia University by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) revealed that the study’s lead author, Dr. Rogerio Lobo, first learned of the study six to twelve months after the study was completed. Professor Lobo subsequently denied having anything to do with the study’s design or conduct and claimed to have provided only editorial assistance. A year later study co-author Daniel Wirth was indicted by a federal grand jury on felony fraud charges involving various criminal activities.

The following significant events have occurred since my SI article was published. I comment accordingly.

Study co-author Daniel Wirth

On November 22, 2004, study co-author Daniel Wirth was sentenced to five years in prison followed by three years of supervised release (parole). At the conclusion of his sentencing hearing Mr. Wirth was taken into United States Marshal custody pending his transfer to a federal prison.

The Journal of Reproductive Medicine and co-author Dr. Kwang Cha

The following “Erratum” was buried on the very last page of the October 2004 issue of the JRM:

Erratum

In the article “Does Prayer Influence the Success of in Vitro Fertilization-Embryo Transfer? Report of a Masked, Randomized Trial,” by Kwang Y.Cha, MD, Daniel P. Wirth, JD, MS, and Rogerio A. Lobo, MD (2001;46:781-787), Dr. Lobo is listed as an author of the article and has requested that his name be deleted, as his name appears in error. He was not directly involved in conducting the research reported in the article; he was involved principally in redaction of the manuscript for stylistic and syntactic purposes. This alteration is in keeping with JRM authorship requirements.

How does one’s name appear, “in error” on a publication? Apparently everyone who reviewed the manuscript and everyone who reviewed the galley proofs, including the authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, did not notice this “error.” On the other hand, perhaps this is not so surprising since these same individuals did not notice that the study lacked any type of informed consent and claimed results that defy the laws of physics and several other fundamental scientific principles!

In November 2004, after three years of ignoring letters critical of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study, the JRM took the unprecedented step of publishing a 1,000-word letter from Dr. Cha defending his absurd study. Thus, to the utter amazement of many readers, JRM allowed Dr. Cha to unilaterally present his side of the story unencumbered by critical comments from concerned physicians and scientists. The readers of JRM were thus partially informed of the controversy surrounding the study but only to convince them that any criticisms they may have read about in newspapers were unwarranted.

Among the highlights of Dr. Cha’s published letter is the statement that “It is regrettable that co-author Daniel P. Wirth has been accused of fraud. . . .” Cha also refers to “this alleged crime.” This implies that, regrettably, Mr. Wirth may have been falsely accused. Nothing could be further from the truth. Six months before Cha’s letter was published Mr. Wirth had pleaded guilty to all crimes contained in a forty-six-page federal indictment thus admitting to a twenty-year history of criminal fraudulent activities. Dr. Cha went on to defend the study’s convoluted study design by stating that Mr. Wirth felt it was the best design to use. This is nothing more than an argument from authority-"It’s fine because the authority says it’s fine.” However, in this case the authority is a convicted felon with a degree in parapsychology (ghostbusting) and a long history of publishing bizarre studies!

Finally, Dr. Cha repeatedly stated that it would have been “impossible” for Mr. Wirth to have influenced the outcome of this study and that “There is no reason to think that Mr. Wirth would have been motivated not to organize prayer groups when such groups are his area of interest.” How does the fact that Mr. Wirth has an interest in prayer groups prove that he did anything at all? The federal indictment makes it clear that Mr. Wirth was perpetrating several criminal schemes involving millions of dollars at the time the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study was allegedly conducted. In the midst of this criminal activity are we to believe that Mr. Wirth took the extensive time and effort needed to meticulously organize and manage several levels of prayer groups in three nations? Does Dr. Cha seriously believe that the idea that Mr. Wirth did not do so is impossible? Perhaps this explains why Dr. Cha will not answer questions about the study.

Columbia University and co-author Dr. Rogerio Lobo

Soon after publication of the SI critique of the study, Columbia University assembled a team of physicians and scientists to investigate the situation. However, on December 1, 2004, Columbia released a statement saying that the medical school “supports Dr. Rogerio Lobo’s decision to remove his name” from the paper. This move had already been announced by the JRM and seemed like a reasonable first step. However, to the surprise of many scientists, the university simultaneously announced that Dr. Lobo’s decision would put an end to the investigation of the study by the medical school’s Committee on the Conduct of Science. This unprecedented move implied that the controversy surrounding the ridiculous study involved only questions of authorship. This, of course, is absolutely not true. The real issue is that the study was absurd, flawed, possibly fraudulent, and claimed to document mysterious supernatural and/or paranormal events. Removing one author’s name from the paper resolved nothing. In any case, this maneuver did not successfully distance Columbia from the scandal because co-author Kwang Cha was also at Columbia when the study was published; in fact, he was head of the now defunct Cha/Columbia Infertility Center.

In the final analysis it is not the behavior of Mr. Wirth but that of individuals at Columbia University and the JRM that have seriously damaged the reputation of science and evidence-based medicine. Peer-review systems at both institutions have completely failed. As we enter the fourth year of this saga it is becoming apparent that some individuals will never admit their mistakes. In any case, the former Cha/Wirth/Lobo miracle study is now the Cha/Wirth miracle study. Dr. Cha will not answer questions about the scandal and Mr. Wirth has just been sentenced to five years in federal prison. Their ludicrous “study” will remain in the peer-reviewed Journal of Reproductive Medicine, will remain indexed in Pubmed-MEDLINE, and will continue to be cited as valid scientific evidence for the power of supernatural faith healing. This is a scientific atrocity.

The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and suspicious from the start but now has been fatally tainted with fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries. The “lead” author said he didn't learn of the study until months after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud. All his previous studies must now be questioned.

On September 11, 2001, the United States of America was rocked by perhaps the most horrific event in its history. In the horrible and uncertain days following the destruction of the World Trade Center (and other attacks) by Islamic zealots many Americans turned to prayer. Millions prayed in their homes and churches as their senators and congressmen prayed on the steps of the Capitol building and their president prayed in the White House. Bumper stickers, signs, and banners flooded the nation proclaiming, “God Bless America” and “Pray for America.” Millions of faithful Americans prayed for a miracle or perhaps a sign from God. Three weeks later such a miracle occurred. The timing could not have been better.

On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary (1). Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (2). Even the researchers were shocked. The study’s results could only be described as miraculous. This was welcome and wonderful news for a shaken nation.

Columbia University issued a news release claiming that the remarkable study had several safeguards in place to eliminate bias and that the study itself was carefully designed to eliminate bias (3). This was no hoax. Media attention immediately focused on the miraculous study, and articles touting its spectacular results quickly appeared in newspapers around the world. Rogerio Lobo, chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Columbia and the study’s lead author, told Reuters Health that, “Essentially, there was a doubling of the pregnancy rate in the group that was prayed for” (4). Dr. Timothy Johnson, ABC News medical editor and Good Morning America commentator, stated, “A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical” (5).

The facts I will relate here about the Columbia University “miracle” study confirm that those physicians who doubted the study’s astounding results had extremely good reasons to be skeptical. It remains to be seen whether ABC’s Dr. Johnson, a medical doctor who also serves as a minister at the evangelical Community Covenant Church in West Peabody, Massachusetts, will report or ignore the following shocking information that has since been revealed about the alleged study and its authors.

The “Miracle” Study

In vitro fertilization (IVF) is the most advanced form of infertility treatment currently available and represents the last hope for women with severe infertility. Therefore, any technique that could increase the efficacy of IVF by even a few percent would be a medical breakthrough. Yet the Columbia University study claimed to have demonstrated, in a carefully designed randomized controlled trial, that distant prayer by anonymous prayer groups increased the success rate of IVF by an astounding 100 percent (2). The Cha/Wirth/Lobo study involved 219 infertility patients in Seoul, South Korea, who required in vitro fertilization. Twenty patients were excluded due to incomplete data, leaving 199 study subjects. After randomization, 100 patients were assigned to the study group to receive IVF plus prayer from Christian prayer groups in the United States, Canada, and Australia. The control group of ninety-nine patients received IVF but did not receive any prayers from these prayer groups. In vitro fertilization was performed in the usual fashion in both groups. The 100 patients in the study group were not informed that the groups were praying for them. Furthermore, none of the patients were even informed that they were being used as study subjects. The prayer groups, which were thousands of miles away from the study subjects, prayed over photographs that had been faxed to them from Korea. Remarkably, the pregnancy rate in the prayed-for group (50 percent) was almost twice as high as the pregnancy rate in the nonprayed-for group (26 percent, p= .0013). The highly significant results seem to indicate that something spectacular had occurred.

However, even a cursory review of the report reveals many potential flaws. For one thing, the study protocol was convoluted and confusing, involving at least three levels of overlapping and intertwining prayer groups. Tiers 1 and 2 each consisted of four blocks of prayer participants. Prayer participants in tier 1, block A, received a single sheet of paper with five IVF patient’s pictures (a treatment “unit”) and prayed in a directed manner with a specific intent to “increase the pregnancy rate” for these patients about whom they apparently had no information whatsoever. Prayer participants in tier 2, block A, apparently performed two different types of prayer. First, they prayed for their fellow prayer participants in tier 1, block A, with the intent to “increase the efficacy of prayer intervention.” In other words, they were apparently praying to increase the effectiveness of their colleagues’ prayers, whatever those prayers might be. Next they prayed in a nondirected manner for the study patients with the “intent that God’s will or desire be fulfilled in the life of the patient.” Similar prayers apparently took place in all of the other blocks. Finally, in addition to all of the above groups, tiers, blocks, and units, a separate group of three individuals prayed in a general nonspecific manner with the intent that “God’s will or desire be fulfilled for the prayer participants in tiers 1 and 2.” In other words, these final three prayer participants were praying to increase the efficacy of the second tier of prayer participants who were in turn praying to increase the efficacy of the first tier of prayer participants who were in turn praying for increased pregnancy rates in the study patients.

As can be seen from this brief description, the study protocol was so convoluted and confusing that it cannot be taken seriously. Of course, a simple protocol could have been used to determine if prayer was efficacious in increasing the success rate of IVF. One might simply instruct a few believers to pray for successful IVF in the study group while no one prayed for patients in the control group. With distant prayer the patients would not know if they were being prayed for, or not, so there would be no intention-to-heal or placebo bias. Contrast this with the study design described above and draw your own conclusions. This article is too brief to describe all of the study’s flaws but readers who want more information are referred to two critiques I have published in The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine (6,7).

Briefly, here are a few problems I pointed out. Choosing a complex study design rather than a simple one requires explanation, however the authors give no reason for selecting a bewildering study design. Including prayers asking that “God’s will or desire be fulfilled” introduced a vague and obfuscating concept that cannot be measured as an endpoint: no one knows what God’s will is, hence any outcome could be viewed as a success. The authors made no attempt to discover how much prayer was being conducted outside the study protocol, perhaps to other gods, since only one-third of Koreans are Christians. Occam’s razor (the principle that a simple explanation rather than a convoluted one is more often correct) demands that highly unlikely results be viewed with suspicion. Is it more likely that this study is flawed or fraudulent or that the authors have demonstrated the existence of a supernatural phenomena and thus have made perhaps the most important discovery in history?

The Columbia University Connection

The study’s three authors were Kwang Cha, Rogerio Lobo, and Daniel Wirth. Kwang Yul Cha, M.D., was the director of the Cha Columbia Infertility Medical Center at the time of the “miracle” study but apparently severed his relationship with Columbia soon after the study was published. A page on Columbia’s Web site, which has since been removed, described Cha as an “internationally renowned clinician and researcher.” Cha is a graduate of the Yonsei Medical School in Seoul, South Korea. Professor Rogerio A. Lobo, M.D., recently stepped down as chairman of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Columbia University. When the study results were announced, Dr. Lobo told the New York Times that the idea for the study came from Dr. Cha; however, the Columbia news release claimed that Dr. Lobo led the study. For two years both Dr. Cha and Dr. Lobo have refused to return my phone calls and e-mails asking questions about the study. The study’s third author, Daniel Wirth, who will be described below, has no known connection with Columbia University other than his participation in the study.

In December 2001, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), after being alerted by media coverage, launched an investigation into the lack of informed consent in the Columbia study.

Columbia University subsequently acknowledged noncompliance with its Multiple Project Assurance (MPA) and its own policies and procedures (8). Specifically, Dr. Lobo never presented the above research to the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center (CCPM). In response to the DHHS investigation Columbia University agreed to have its IRB perform an educational in-service for Lobo’s department.

In addition, in December 2001, Columbia University Vice President Thomas Q. Morris, a physician, informed the DHHS that Dr. Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study was completed and that Lobo primarily provided editorial review and assistance with publication (8). This seems inconsistent with Lobo being listed as one of the study’s authors. This also conflicts with the fact that Lobo was identified by both The New York Times and ABC News as the report’s lead author. Lobo was also identified as the report’s lead author in a news release posted for two years on the Columbia University Web site. Interestingly, the press release has recently been removed from the Columbia site. If the report’s lead author did not conduct the international prayer study, who did?

The Mysterious Daniel Wirth

The remaining author is a mysterious individual known as Daniel P. Wirth. In October 2002, one year after the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study was published, Mr. Wirth, along with his former research associate Joseph Horvath, also known as Joseph Hessler, was indicted by a federal grand jury (9). Both men were charged with bilking the troubled cable television provider Adelphia Communications Corporation out of $2.1 million by infiltrating the company, then having it pay for unauthorized consulting work. Police investigators discovered that Wirth is also known as John Wayne Truelove. FBI investigators revealed that Wirth first used the name of Truelove, a New York child who died at age five in 1959, to obtain a passport in the mid-1980s. Wirth and his accomplice were charged with thirteen counts of mail fraud, twelve counts of interstate transportation of stolen money, making false statements on loan applications, and five other counts of fraud. A federal grand jury concluded that the relationship between Wirth and Horvath extended back more than twenty years and involved more than $3.4 million in income and property obtained by using false identities. In addition to the Adelphia scheme, Wirth apparently found a way to defraud the federal government by collecting Social Security benefits totaling approximately $103,178 from 1994 to 2003 in the name of Julius Wirth. This man, possibly Daniel Wirth’s father, died in 1994 but his benefits continued to be paid after his death via electronic funds transferred to the Republic National Bank.

Incredibly, at the time of the indictment, Horvath, Wirth’s partner, was already in jail, charged with arson for burning down his Pennsylvania house to collect insurance money (10). The FBI investigation revealed that Horvath had previously gone to prison in a 1990 embezzlement and false identity case in California. Interestingly, the investigation also revealed that he had also once been arrested for posing as a doctor in California. It appears that the “doctor” who performed biopsies on human research subjects in Wirth’s famous healing studies may have actually been Horvath impersonating a doctor. Horvath was a co-author on another of Wirth’s studies in which salamander limbs were amputated and found to grow back more quickly when “healers” waved their hands over the wounds.

Both Wirth and Horvath initially pled not guilty to the felony charges, and over the next eighteen months their trial was delayed six times. However, on May 18, 2004, just as the criminal trial of the United States v. Wirth & Horvath was finally about to begin, both men pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and conspiracy to commit bank fraud (11). Each man faced a maximum of five years in federal prison and agreed to forfeit assets of more than $1 million obtained through fraudulent schemes. Horvath, however, was found dead in his jail cell on July 13, 2004, an apparent suicide.

Daniel Wirth’s Prior Research

Wirth, identified as Doctor Daniel Wirth on several of his publications, has no medical degree. He holds a master’s degree in parapsychology and a law degree. Wirth has a long history of publishing studies on mysterious supernatural or paranormal phenomena, mainly dealing with alternative and spiritual healing. Most of these studies originated from an entity called “Healing Sciences Research International,” an organization that Mr. Wirth supposedly headed. This entity, which sounds like a medical center or impressive research facility, could only be contacted through a post office box in Orinda, California. Between 1992 and 1997 approximately eighteen research papers authored by D.P. Wirth were published, mostly in obscure paranormal journals (12-29).

Wirth has stated that his experiments “represent a seminal research effort within the field of complementary healing,” and many faith healing advocates fully agree with his statement. Due to the apparently meticulous design and conduct of Wirth’s randomized, double-blind controlled studies he has become the virtual poster boy of alternative healing methods, particularly Noncontact Therapeutic Touch (NCTT). In NCTT the “healer” does not actually touch the patient but supposedly alters undetectable “human energy fields” surrounding the patient. According to Wirth, NCTT apparently achieves its healing effect by an interaction of “energy fields” between the practitioner and the subject. The method requires the healer to 1) “center” his/herself both physically and psychologically, 2) “attune” to the “energy field” of the subject by “scanning” with the hands two to six inches from the body in order to detect imbalances within or blocks within the energy field, and 3) consciously redirect and “rebalance” the energy in those areas of blockage (24). The existence of these imagined human energy fields has never been proven. Even if such fields did exist, it is not clear how a healer could possibly detect or modify them. In fact, in a recent study twenty-one experienced NCTT practitioners were unable to detect any “human energy fields” under blinded conditions. The study concluded that failure to substantiate TT’s most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of NCTT are completely groundless (30).

In addition to his extensive work on NCTT, Wirth has previously conducted several studies involving Christian faith healing. For example, he evaluated and reported on forty-eight patients treated by Greg Schelkun, a spiritual healer trained in the Philippines in the “Espiritista System” of faith healing (17). This system includes “psychic surgery,” laying on of hands, and distant prayer healing. It has a Christian foundation in which the practitioner supposedly cultivates divine healing by entering a trace-like state and opening themselves to the healing power of the Holy Spirit. Schelkun asserts that he acts only as a channel for the “universal energies” of God and that any “miraculous cures” that occur are due solely to the Grace of God. Wirth evaluated patients treated by Schelkun for conditions ranging from ovarian cysts to AIDS and even cancer. Wirth found that 90 percent of patients believed that their condition was improved by the treatment.

In October 2001 narcotics officers raided the Santa Monica, California, office of Dr. William Eidelman, co-author of many of Daniel Wirth’s papers. Eidelman is a believer in paranormal healing and an outspoken proponent of the medical use of marijuana. Officers presented a search warrant charging that Eidelman provided undercover narcotic agents with medical marijuana recommendations without valid medical grounds. On May 28, 2002, Eidelman’s license to practice medicine was suspended.

Journal of Reproductive Medicine

Perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire sordid saga can be summed up in one question: How did a bizarre study claiming extraordinarily unlikely and apparently supernatural results end up in a peer-reviewed medical journal? We may never know. For two years the editors of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (JRM) refused to answer my calls or respond to letters about this study. The fact that study co-author Lobo serves on the Editorial Advisory Board of the JRM may or may not be relevant. It is known that Columbia University Vice President Thomas Q. Morris informed DHHS investigators that Dr. Lobo first learned of the study from Dr. Cha six to twelve months after the study was completed and that Dr. Lobo primarily provided editorial review and assistance with publication (8).

On May 30, 2004, the London Observer made many of these events public for the first time in an article titled “Exposed: Conman’s Role in Prayer-power IVF 'Miracle'"(31). The Observer article noted that the study was still posted on the JRM Web site and that phone calls from the Observer to the JRM were not returned. Three days after the scandal had been made public and linked to the journal, perhaps in response to an avalanche of inquiries, JRM co-editor-in-chief Dr. Lawrence Devoe finally stated that the Journal of Reproductive Medicine would remove the flawed Columbia study from its Web site and publish an editorial clarifying their author requirements. Both the Observer article and a June 7, 2004, article in The New York Sun stated that the authors did not respond to their requests for comment.

It must be emphasized that, in the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. The importance of this fact cannot be overstated. One would think that all medical journal editors would be keenly aware of this fact and therefore be highly skeptical of paranormal or supernatural claims. One must therefore wonder if the Columbia researchers and the JRM editors were blinded by religious beliefs. Everything else being equal, if the claimed supernatural intervention had been Ms. Cleo manipulating Tarot cards rather than Christians praying, would the reviewers and editors have taken this study seriously? In any case, the damage has been done. The fact that a “miracle cure” study was deemed to be suitable for publication in a scientific journal automatically enhanced the study’s credibility. Not surprisingly, the news media quickly disseminated the “miraculous” results.

Damage Control

Clearly, JRM's belated decision to remove the Columbia study from its Web site will not correct the errors it made in publishing an absurd article and then persistently ignoring warnings about the mistake in doing so. Serious damage has been done. The editors were informed of several of the study’s flaws within weeks of its publication and yet allowed the entire study to remain on their Web site for two years. During that time the public was never given any reason to doubt the study’s validity or its miraculous claims. As a result of JRM's inaction the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has been cited in many other “healing” publications and on other Web sites as strong scientific evidence for the validity of faith healing. A Google search performed on June 4, 2004, for the terms, “Wirth, Columbia, prayer” found 686 sites; many of these links led to articles touting the miraculous results of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study.

Worse yet, the Columbia study is now being cited by faith healers as a shining example of “healing” research of the highest scientific quality. For example, I recently wrote a letter to the editor of Southern California Physician critical of its article “Prescription for Prayer” and the appalling claim by noted faith healer Dr. Larry Dossey that some 1,600 studies have revealed “something positive” about intercessory prayer. I commented that if there were, in fact, something positive it certainly wouldn't take 1,600 studies to find it! Dr. Dossey’s published response to my letter included the following convincing argument, “Controlled clinical trials and the peer-review process continue to serve us well. The most recent example of this process in action in the area of intercessory prayer is from Columbia Medical School-a positive, controlled clinical trial published in the respected, peer-reviewed Journal of Reproductive Medicine” (32). Yes, Dossey had used the hopelessly flawed Columbia “miracle” study to demonstrate the scientific validity of faith healing.

In the February 2004 edition of her nationally distributed newsletter, faith healing advocate Dr. Susan Lark cites the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study as strong evidence for the power of prayer (33). She notes that critics of faith healing have argued that most prayer studies have not been credible due to weak methodologies. However, she points out that “those researchers who believe in prayer are answering this critique quickly-and effectively. The fact is, the medical journals are rapidly filling with studies that are proving the power of prayer.” She then presents the proof by describing the Columbia “miracle” study.

In a published critique of phony healing methods, noted physician and chairman of the Dutch Union Against Quackery Dr. Cees Renckens has this to say about the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study: “Very recently a seemingly impeccable paper proving absurd claims was published in a serious and (hitherto?) respected journal in the field of reproductive medicine” (34). Dr. Renckens also states, “Fraud is difficult to extract from an apparently impeccable paper, but everyone is invited to draw one’s owns conclusions about the trustworthiness of the authors. We do not believe anything of the story and are very much opposed to publishing this kind of absurdity in serious journals.”

For both Columbia University and the JRM, the only honorable solution to this scandal is to fully and publicly disclose their mistakes and apologize for the attempted cover-up. Columbia erroneously submitted a profoundly flawed and absurd article and JRM erroneously published it. Simply claiming that they were duped by Wirth and attempting to blame him for their own mistakes would be unethical-and almost certainly false. It would also be a setback for science.

Conclusion

In summary, one of the authors of the Columbia Cha/Wirth/Lobo study has left the University and refuses to comment, another now claims he did not even know about the study until six months to a year after its completion and also refuses to comment. The remaining author is on his way to federal prison for fraud and conspiracy. Fraud is the operative word here. In reality, the Columbia University prayer study was based on a bewildering study design and included many sources of error. But worse than flaws, in light of all of the shocking information presented above, one must consider the sad possibility that the Columbia prayer study may never have been conducted at all.

Finally, Daniel Wirth’s history of criminal fraudulent activity casts a dark shadow over many of the supposedly seminal publications in the field of alternative and faith healing. In light of these facts, all of his frequently-cited publications must now be viewed with suspicion. While faith healers have performed rituals and cast out demons for millennia, they are now attempting to validate their claims with scientific methods and publish their results in peer-reviewed medical journals. It is one thing to tell an audience at a tent revival that prayers yield miracle cures but quite another thing to make the same claim in a scientific journal. By doing so, faith healers cross the line into the domain of science, a domain where superstitious and supernatural claims are not taken seriously.

Lessons from the 'Miracle' Study Scandal

• The real scandal here lies not in Wirth’s actions but in those of Columbia University and the Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The scientific method is designed to detect and correct errors and misconduct. In this case the system failed in many places. In fact, if Wirth had not been arrested, the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study might have never been retracted.
• Faith healing advocates like Drs. Dossey and Lark will no doubt try to put a positive spin on this scandal by claiming that it has successfully weeded out a few bad apples from an otherwise pristine bunch. Nothing could be further from the truth.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Unless replicated under strictly controlled conditions, studies claiming to have demonstrated “miracle” cures belong in religious and paranormal magazines, not in scientific journals. This is true regardless of whether the claimed “miracle” involves supposed actions of deities, ghosts, psychic powers, or other “mysterious” phenomena.
• It is often claimed that faith healing may not work but at least does no harm. In fact, reliance on faith healing can cause serious harm and even death (35).
• In the entire history of modern science, no claim of any type of supernatural phenomena has ever been replicated under strictly controlled conditions. All scientists and editors of scientific and medical journals should be fully aware of this obvious fact.
• The “faith” in faith healing refers to an irrational belief, unsupported by evidence, that mysterious supernatural powers can eradicate disease. Science deals with evidence, not faith.
• Publication of absurd studies and pseudoscience in medical and scientific journals does serious damage to the public’s perception of medical science and science in general.

References

• Nagourney, E. Study links prayer and pregnancy. New York Times. 2001; October.
• Cha KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? J Reprod Med 2001;46:781-787.
• Eisner, R. Prayer may influence in vitro fertilization success. Columbia News. This document remained on the Public Affairs News page of Columbia University Internet site for more than two years after the publication of the Cha/Wirth/Lobo study (www.columbia.edu/cu/news).
• Schorr, M. Prayer may boost in-vitro success, study suggests. Reuters News Service: 2001; October.
• Johnson, T. Praying for pregnancy: Study says prayer helps women get pregnant. ABC television Good Morning America 2001; October 4.
• Flamm, BL. Faith healing by prayer: Review of Cha, KY, Wirth, DP, Lobo, RA. Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Sci Review Alt Med 2002; 6(1):47-50.
• Flamm, BL. Faith healing confronts modern medicine. Sci Review Alt Med 2004; 8(1):9-14.
• Carmone, MA. Letter to Thomas Q. Morris, MD, Vice President for Health Sciences Division, regarding possible noncompliance with DHHS regulations for protection of human subjects in the conduct of the Cha et. al. Study.
• Pair charged with scheming Adelphia out of $2.1 million. Associated Press. October 16, 2002.
• Dale, M. Arson added to charges pending against ex-Adelphia manager. Associated Press. Contra Costa Times. February 5, 2003.
• McDermott, J. Mystery man admits to conspiracy. The Morning Call Newspaper. May 18, 2004. This article can be viewed in the news archives at www.mcall.com.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR, Chang RJ. Multisite surface electromyography and complementary healing intervention: A comparative analysis. J Altern Complement Med 1997 Winter; 3(4):355-64.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. Multisite electromyographic analysis of Therapeutic Touch and qigong therapy. J Altern Complement Med 1997 Summer; 3(2):109-18.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Eidelman WS. Wound healing and complementary therapies: A review. J Altern Complement Med 1996 Winter; 2(4):493-502.
• Wirth DP, Chang RJ, Eidelman WS, Paxton JB. Hematological indicators of complementary healing intervention. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1996 January: 14-20.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Martinez RD, Eidelman WS, Lopez ME. Non-contact Therapeutic Touch intervention and full-thickness cutaneous wounds: A replication Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1996 October: 237-240.
• Wirth, DP. The significance of belief and expectancy within the spiritual healing encounter. Soc Sci Med 1995;41(2):249-260.
• Wirth, DP. Complementary healing intervention and dermal wound reepithelialization: An overview. Int J Psychosomatics 1995;42:48-53.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. The psychophysiology of nontraditional prayer. Int J Psychosom 1994;41(1-4):68-75.
• Wirth DP, Barrett MJ. Complementary healing therapies. Int J Psychosom 1994;41(1-4):61-7.
• Wirth DP, Mitchell BJ. Complementary healing therapy for patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1994;8(3): 367-377.
• Wirth DP, Barrett MJ, Eidelman WS. Non-contact therapeutic touch and wound reepithelialization: an extension of previous research. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1994 (2) October: 187-192.
• Wirth DP, Brenlan DR, Levine RJ, Rodriguez CM. The effect of complementary healing therapy on postoperative pain after surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1993 July 133-138.
• Wirth DP, Cram JR. Multi-site electromyographic analysis of non-contact Therapeutic Touch. Int J Psychosom 1993;40(1-4):47-55.
• Wirth DP, Richardson JT, Martinez R, Eidelman WS, O'Malley AC. Full thickness dermal wounds treated with non-contact Therapeutic Touch; a replication and extension. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 1993 July: 127-132.
• Wirth, DP. Implementing spiritual healing in modern medical practice: Advances. J Mind-Body Health 1993;(9):69-81.
• Wirth DP, Johnson CA, Horvath JS, MacGregor JD. The effect of alternative healing therapy on the regeneration rate of salamander forelimbs. Journal of Scientific Exploration 1992; (6):375-391.
• Wirth, DP. The effect of non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds. Nurse Healers Professional Associates 1992;13(3):4-8
• Wirth, DP. The effect of non-contact Therapeutic Touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds. Subtle Energies 1990; 1:1-20.
• Rosa L, Rosa E, Sarner L, Barrett S. A close look at Therapeutic Touch. JAMA 1998 Apr 1:279(13):1005-10.
• Harris, D. Exposed: Conman’s role in prayer-power IVF 'miracle'. The Observer May 30, 2004.
• Dossey, L. Response to letter to the editor. Southern California Physician December 2001:46.
• Lark, S. The power of prayer. The Lark Letter: A women’s guide to optimal health and balance. February 2004:1-3.
• Renckens, CNM. Alternative treatments in reproductive medicine: much ado about nothing. Human Reproduction 2002;17(3):528-533.
• Flamm, BL. The inherent dangers of faith healing. Sci Review Alt Med. In Press.