Naturally, those with better health and capacity are probably better able to make the trek to church or, indeed, any other activity. This is comparable to arguing that participation is soccer games immunizes one from broken legs, because of the low percentage of soccer players on the field who exhibit such a malady. One study, for instance, claimed an association between attendance at religious services and high levels of interleukin-6 in the elderly. A subsequent study found no significant association. In other words, prayer itself may not help if it is done in the privacy of one's home, whereas going to church could produce a different outcome.
Experimental replication is a crucial part of the scientific method.
Claims must be testable if they stand any chance of having merit and passing peer review . Indeed, this same caution should be extended to scientists or others who exploit their credentials in one area, say biology or astronomy, to support questionable political or religious positions. Linking religious activities and better health outcomes can be harmful to patients, who already must confront age-old folk wisdom that illness is due to their own moral failure. Attention also needs to be paid to the issue of having public universities or colleges promote any faith-based healing agendas. As for the assertion that religious belief is good for health, The Lancet article indicates that those who advance the claim have yet to demonstrate its validity through rigorous empirical evidence.