Human Health Research Paper

I am writing to you on behalf of the Master Program in Public Health of the University of New England in concern about your article listed above. I will have to agree with you that since ancient time, humans have always relied on religion, supernatural powers, or herbs to heal them from ill-health or to protect them from evil or harm. In taking a brief snapshot about the history of medicine and humans, I can see why it is compelling to study. In many societies, the Gods played an integral role in human health. In the Greek world, the God Asklepios was dedicated exclusively to healing. By the fifth century B.C., physicians and the God of Healing had become intrinsically linked with Asklepios as the divine patron of the medical profession. Hippocrates,
The stuff you may already know but may overlooked in the quest to justify your research, especially if you have a strong belief in the healing powers of prayers. This can lead to exception fallacy, a faulty conclusion reached as a result of basing it on a unique case.4 However, I shall point out a few threats to external validity. The reason being, external validity is the degree to which the conclusion in a study should hold for other persons in other places and other times.4 Therefore, since the study is religious based, this poses a great threat to external validity because of people's belief and religious convictions in different regions. Like you said, "People who believe in God and pray during illness have been reported to have better health outcomes than those who do not . . ." Yet, pain medication or other prescription medications seem to work for all. Why is that? I find your study to be more subjective than objective because of the outcome. Some people who do not practice the same rituals may claim otherwise for their healing benefits. Why it is that supernatural powers only work on some and not all, especially since it was a double-blind study? Why is it that intercessory prayers only work in close approximation? Your research failed to involve generalization. Selection bias was also problematic in your study, because you "indicated that only
I disagree with your method because It is not reliable, and it has several threats to internal and external validity. In addition, it is loaded with biases. I do believe in alternative medicine; providing it can provide convincing results with the same accuracy and reliability. Until this research can be repeated time and time again with the same certainty, I will have to categorize it as pseudoscience because your research failed to answer the proverbial research question,