I have been thinking about this post most of the day before posting a reply to it. I want to preface my reply by stating that I consider myself someone who has a rich spiritual side, which coexists with the scientific side of my thinking without conflict. That side of me has been both tempered and philosophically polished by deaths of brothers in arms in far away places, diseases of my own and my family, and a life of being involved with health related issues.

I have two problems with the previous post. The first is that it suggests prayer and an abandonment of conventional treatments as a viable alternative to proven medical protocols. The second is that it also endorses an unproven alternative therapy in lieu of those which have established, scientifically documentable track records. Both of these avenues of thought in my opinion are dangerous, as the likely outcome will be that patients following them will not survive.

I do not wish this message board to turn into a theological debate on the existence of God, nor any of the ramifications of an exploration of that nature. Including things like his/her ability to intervene in illness, morbidity, or the outcome of sporting events. (I never really considered that any God I believed in was actually listening to my coach in the locker room when were getting suited up for a game and had a group prayer before hitting the field. Surely He had more important issues to deal with such as famine and disease.) Further, I can