Dear Visitor to this web page,

You may have come to this page directly, rather than reading your way through this Healing Research section of the WholisticHealingResearch.com site to get to this page. You are invited to explore the full spectrum of hundreds of other reports from hundreds of other researchers who have investigated the effects of healing on humans, animals, plants, bacteria, yeasts, cells in laboratory culture, enzymes and more. Good places to start are:

Research - Wholistic Healing

Summary of Healing Research

Blessings,

Dan (WHR site moderator)

Questions concerning the scientific credibility of wound healing studies authored by Daniel P. Wirth

Jerry Solfvin PhD, Eric Leskowitz MD, and Daniel J. Benor MD

Abstract

Daniel P. Wirth has not responded to questions about his research. Serious concerns are raised regarding anomalies surrounding research published by Wirth, including hitherto unpublished data. The concerns focus on Wirth's Therapeutic Touch wound-healing studies, and include: the author's inaccessibility to professional colleagues; lack of proper documentation; inappropriate and deceptive use of titles, affiliations, and co-authorships; and consequently, questions of possible fraud. A clear and consistent pattern of evidence is presented which, taken as a whole, strongly suggests Wirth's unprofessional handling of research data.  We suggest that Wirth's wound-healing data be held under suspicion unless and until additional proof of its proper collection is supplied. This has been requested of Wirth, but has not been provided. Wirth's other past and future publications should be carefully scrutinized as well for minimal requirements of evidence and documentation. Until such time as Wirth responds with satisfactory clarifications regarding the questions raised in this paper, the authors of this critique strongly recommend that all of the wound healing research bearing Wirth's name be held in question in research reviews. Also discussed are the recent media accounts of Wirth's involvement in a study of prayer healing on the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF). It is our hope that by publicly airing these concerns, Wirth will be more forthcoming regarding his published studies and will in the future demonstrate a higher standard of accountability in his research reports. While the issues raised here put in questions the work of a single researcher in the field of healing studies, it does not seriously lessen the robust evidence from hundreds of other studies published by respectable researchers around the world.


Introduction

Daniel Wirth has not responded to questions about his research. Since the publication of Daniel P. Wirth's landmark wound healing study in 1990, each of the authors of this inquiry has attempted to elicit information from Wirth about basic elements of his work, at different times and for different reasons over the years.  We have each been unsuccessful in doing so, as have numerous other colleagues with whom we have spoken.  In the process, we have become increasingly concerned about the scientific integrity of Wirth's published research reports.  Alarms were also raised by others when they learned that Wirth had been arrested for federal fraud last year and has now been sentenced to incarceration for five years (Carey, 2004; Jaroff, 2004a, 2004b).

The primary purpose of this paper is to offer an open invitation to Daniel P. Wirth to respond to critical questions about his work that could have been answered by him at professional conferences, were he to attend them, or through correspondence and other communications, were he to respond to written or verbal inquiries.  A copy of an earlier version of this paper was sent to Wirth at his mailing address of record, via US Postal Service (USPS) certified mail on July 7 2004, with an invitation to respond as part of the public record.  The intent was to publish this critique, accompanied by his response. However, the manuscript was returned (unopened) by USPS marked "unclaimed," after the requisite time period had elapsed. Further attempts were made to reach Wirth through his attorney, William Arbuckle, of State College, PA, but these attempts also brought no response from Wirth.

In addition to offering Wirth an opportunity to defend his work, we have a larger purpose in writing this paper.  As committed professionals engaged in the research, teaching and practice of spiritual healing and bioenergy healing, we wish to alert our colleagues to what is, at best, Wirth's highly irregular and unprofessional behavior, and at worst, though yet to be determined, may be outright fraud. 

Focusing on Wirth's wound healing studies, what follows are some of the facts that have led us to issue this serious warning.  The concerns fall into four categories:

1. Lack of appropriate collegial accessibility and communication

2. Questions regarding evidence that the research took place as described in the wound healing studies

3. Questions of co-investigators' involvement despite multiple names on articles

4. Possibility of fraud

Lack of collegial accessibility and communication

EL:  As a physician and long-time student of energy healing, I have often given lectures designed to demonstrate that there is a scientific basis for the apparently inexplicable phenomena associated with subtle energy and energy healing.  Over the years, my favorite article to cite was a 1990 study by Daniel Wirth entitled "Healing of full thickness dermal wounds by non-contact therapeutic touch," published in the September 1990 issue of Subtle Energies, the maiden issue of the official journal of the International Society for the Study of Subtle Energy and Energy Medicine (ISSSEEM).

The paper described how brief treatments with Therapeutic Touch - a popular energy field therapy that had been taught to an estimated 10,000 nurses in America alone - could more than double the rate at which dermal wounds created by a punch biopsy healed in healthy volunteers.  I loved the article because of its ironclad methodology: triple blind, with no room for placebo or expectancy effects, and absolutely stunning and highly significant results (p < 0.00001).

However, clouds began to gather for me in 1995, when I attempted to contact Wirth with questions about methodology and reproducibility that had arisen after a recent chance meeting at a professional conference with a member of the Rocky Mountain Skeptics (a well-known group that has attempted to use analytic and critical methods to disprove paranormal claims and phenomena). My skeptical colleague had a particular interest in Therapeutic Touch, and asked several straightforward questions about Wirth's study protocol, which I was unable to answer.

I thought it would be a simple matter of writing to the author, at the contact address given in the article, to gather enough information to clear up those routine questions. However, I received no answer to letters mailed to the provided address.  The local telephone directory assistance had no listing for a business or home telephone number in Mr. Wirth's listed town, and his graduate school (mentioned by name in one of the literature citations that followed the article) gave the same address listed in the article as the contact information for Wirth.

In my continuing search, I was able to contact Wirth's master's thesis adviser (Jerry Solfvin, PhD) who shared some of his own concerns regarding Wirth's work, detailed below.  He was particularly uneasy about Mr. Wirth's inaccessibility and his avoidance of scientific forums where he might respond to questions from his professional peers.  Seemingly at a dead end, I let the matter rest, without being able to answer any of the questions from my skeptical colleague.

Over the ensuing years, while attending meetings of the American Holistic Medical Association, I came to know Daniel Benor, a physician/researcher who has compiled an extensive annotated bibliography and critique of the published literature on healing. I learned that he had also experienced similar difficulties in attempting to contact Wirth about the 1990 study.

DB: I wrote to Wirth several times in 1997 to ask permission to quote from his many studies of healing for my work, Healing Research, Volume 1, at that time nearing publication. Wirth responded somewhat irregularly, reporting that he traveled a lot for consultations. His responses were positive and helpful, granting permission to cite extensively from his papers, but asking to review what was quoted. I complied, forwarding copies of my reviews and quotes from Wirth's works, along with a standard copyright release.

Eventually, Wirth returned the permission letter, but it was undated. I thought this was an oversight, but when I reviewed my other correspondence from Wirth, I discovered that Wirth had never dated any of his letters. In a phone conversation, Wirth said that, speaking as a lawyer, he saw no problem with not dating the permission.  He also refused to give contact details of his co-authors, saying that they did not want to be bothered with inquiries.  He did not respond to a subsequent registered letter requesting a dated permission.  I contacted all of the journals in which Wirth had published co-authored articles. None had any contact details for authors other than Wirth.  (This has been standard practice for many journals, which only request contact details for the corresponding author.) Again, no definitive answers were available, and no further steps were taken.  However, I felt sufficiently uneasy about Wirth's scientific integrity that I elected to exclude most of his studies from my review of healing research.  (The exceptions were studies published with Jeffrey Cram, whom I was able to contact, and who reassured me that he had participated fully in the collection of the clinical observations and measurements and the statistical analyses of data.)

Questions regarding evidence that the research took place as described in the wound healing studies

Wirth's publications began in 1987, with his master's thesis (Wirth, 1987) and continue through 2001, when he appeared as second author of a study of the effects of prayer healing on the success of in vitro fertilization (Cha, Wirth, & Lobo, 2001). From 1987 to 2001, there are a total of 20 citations for Wirth, mostly reports of original research published in peer reviewed journals, including Subtle Energies, International Journal of Psychosomatics, Complementary Therapies in Medicine, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Social Science and Medicine, and Journal of Reproductive Medicine. The 20 publications are detailed in Appendix A. The series of wound-healing studies cited in Appendix A is Wirth's signature work. We will focus primarily upon this in this critique.

JS: I knew Wirth in my capacity as mentor to students at John F. Kennedy University. In the winter of 1989, Wirth brought a piece of paper with hand written numbers on it to me with a request for assistance with statistical analysis -- relating to his first wound healing studies.  I assisted Wirth with the analysis on the day he brought the handwritten data.  In the following weeks, I saw Wirth several times while he was writing up the paper in response to the Call for Papers from the Parapsychological Association Conference, because he sought out my comments and suggestions. On one of those occasions, I asked Wirth directly about the doctor, healer, subjects, and location that were involved in the study.  Wirth refused to supply that information, even when offered a guarantee of confidentiality.

Wirth told me the following: The doctor had insisted on absolute anonymity for fear of his reputation.  The nurse/healer had also been guaranteed anonymity for similar reasons. The house in which the study was conducted was donated for that purpose by its owner, a woman who Wirth said he had met casually while recruiting subjects.  She took an interest in his study, he said, and offered the use of her house.  She was not concerned about the alterations necessary for the study (installing a pet door into an interior door between rooms) or the traffic from 44 subjects coming in and out of the house for several weeks. Wirth claimed that that woman could not be contacted when I questioned him because she had sold the house immediately after the study was concluded and moved away, leaving no forwarding address.  Wirth said he couldn't recall the woman's name.  When I expressed interest in going to the house, driving by it, knocking on the door and asking the current owner to confirm any detail of the alterations, Wirth said that would be impossible, because he didn't think he would be able to recognize it.

As for the subjects, Wirth said these were people he met at local student hangouts in the Santa Clara area (e.g., coffee shops).  No consent forms were used, and Wirth kept no records or contact information on subjects.  I suggested that we could go and sit in one of those coffee shops on the chance that Wirth could identify some of the subjects.  (This was just a few months after he reported he had collected this data, and it was still the same academic term, Winter/Spring, 1989).  Wirth declined, saying that he was certain he wouldn't be able to remember the faces of any of the subjects.

At some point, I suggested to Wirth that a designated third party be appointed to make contact with the healer and/or the doctor, confirm their participation and ask whatever questions about their involvement in the study needed to be asked, while maintaining their anonymity.  Wirth responded that the nurse/healer and the doctor were both so concerned for their jobs that they would never agree to this request.

Thus, the following key details of this study, which peer reviewed journals have the right to assume exist in the files of the investigator, have never been provided, despite the attempts by myself and others to obtain the information from Wirth:

1.  The name and contact information of the medical doctor who collaborated in the study;

2.  The name and contact information of the nurse/TT practitioner who administered the TT treatments;

3. The name and contact information of any of the 44 students who were subjects in the study;

4.  The specific site (house) in which the study took place;

5.   The name and contact information of the owner of the house in which the study took place;

6.  The notes, lists, contact information, appointments, data sheets, etc., made by Wirth;

7.  The notes, lists, contact information, appointments, data sheets, etc., made by the doctor;

8.  The notes, lists, contact information, appointments, data sheets, etc., made by the nurse/healer;

9.  Corroborations of the alterations made to the house (for the purpose of the study).

In summary, Wirth has not provided even the most basic, tangible evidence that the study ever took place. 

Eventually, this first study was published in the peer reviewed journal Subtle Energies.  Almost immediately, Wirth started work on a replication study, this time with co-authors involved.  In 1993, the journal Complementary Therapies in Medicine (UK) published, in its inaugural volume, an attempted replication (Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, & O'Malley, 1993).  However, the presence of co-authors on his research projects does little to allay concerns about Wirth's data collection procedures, because we have been unable to confirm that anyone other than Wirth himself ever participated in the actual collection of the data or analysis.  We have found no evidence that allays this concern in any of the five studies which constitute Wirth's wound-healing series, or in the two published review/summaries of that series, as described in the following section.

Lack of co-investigators' involvement despite multiple names on articles

While preparing the current critique, JS was able to contact one person listed as co-author on a wound healing study, and inquired about this person's collaboration with Wirth.  This coauthor has requested anonymity, but confirmed that (s)he never interacted with any of the subjects (not even casually), had no idea who the other co-authors were or what role they may have played, did not know where or when or how the data had been collected, and did not participate in the writing or publishing of the paper. 

This person's co-authorship consisted of the following: Wirth approached him(her), said he was conducting a research project, and needed independent experts to perform a small task -- rating a series of Polaroid photographs of skin wound scars as to their degree of closure.  This person agreed, and subsequently Wirth presented him(her) with a pile of photos and more detailed instructions on the rating procedure, which this person completed and returned to Wirth.  S/he had no further involvement with the study. 

There are five published research reports that constitute the Wirth wound healing series (Wirth, 1990; Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, & O'Malley, 1993; Wirth, Barrett, & Eidelman, 1994; Wirth & Barrett, 1994; Wirth, Richardson, Martinez, Eidelman, & Lopez, 1996).  There are a total of six co-authors involved in this series, each listed as co-author on 1, 2 or 3 of the publications.  Yet Wirth is the only one whose involvement in the data collection we have been able to verify.  JS attempted to locate these six individuals and has only been able to find one of them, as indicated above, by using internet search engines like AOL Search and Google, as well as author name searches on PubMed and Medline. 

For Wirth and these six co-authors, the only affiliation listed in the five publications is Healing Sciences Research International, a name created by Wirth while still a graduate student at John F. Kennedy University.  Thus, while these five studies may convey the impression of teams of people working on behalf of an institute, it appears possible that Daniel Wirth was solely responsible for envisioning, designing, analyzing, writing up, and publishing these reports.

Possibility of Fraud

Daniel Wirth has been much in the news media recently because of his involvement in two presumably unrelated events (Carey, 2004; Cha, 2004; Jaroff, 2004a, 2004b). First, he coauthored a high profile study (Cha, Wirth, Lobo, 2001) of the effects of prayer on the success of in vitro fertilization procedures. Second, he pled guilty (in May 2004) to conspiracy to defraud Adelphia Communications, Inc. out of 2.1 million dollars (and several other counts). Daniel P. Wirth is now in federal prison in Atwater, CA, serving his term. There's been considerable commentary on Wirth lately in the media and on the internet, primarily driven by individuals who are outspoken critics of prayer and healing studies generally. The commentary has attempted to link the two facts above. In fact, this appears more to be using Wirth's fraud conviction as a tool for discrediting a prayer healing study whose results these individuals didn't like in the first place. These skeptics have raised no issues about other studies published by Wirth with results that did not favor the efficacy of healing.

We strongly disapprove of the inappropriate and deceptive tactic of drawing unfounded connections for the purpose of advancing one's own philosophical agenda. In response, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine which published the Cha, Wirth, Lobo (2001) article has reviewed the allegations and chosen - correctly we believe - to leave the article as it is. Lobo has chosen to remove his name from the publication.

Now we, too, must reference Wirth's fraud indictment but this is a very different situation for several reasons. First, we restrict our allegations to Wirth's therapeutic touch wound healing studies without regard to their outcomes. Second, we began our investigations into this several years before Wirth's legal troubles surfaced. Third, we have no special interest in discrediting Therapeutic Touch or spiritual methods -- rather, we have a strong interest in encouraging more good research in this area. Fourth, and very importantly, a number of specific facts emerged from Wirth's court appearances which directly or indirectly raise questions about Wirth's research data. Thus, in the interest of clarification and completeness we feel obliged to present some facts brought to public light by Daniel Wirth's indictment proceedings.

For me (JS) personally, perhaps the most surprising new fact to came out of this trial was that Daniel P. Wirth and fellow student Josepf Horvath knew each other and had already begun to collaborate for illegal purposes even before they enrolled as students at John F. Kennedy University, where I became their mentor. (See Appendix B, Indictment: OVERT ACTS:  #1, 2, 3). Prior to learning this, I had questioned whether the Dan Wirth that I knew as a student was characterologically the same Daniel P. Wirth whose professional activities we are now questioning. But now I understand that he was misrepresenting himself to me right from the beginning. Daniel Wirth and Josepf Horvath had a secret life of which I was unaware.

The court records document a long history of conspiracy between Wirth and Horvath. That this connection between Wirth and Horvath is relevant to the present discussion can best be seen by examining Wirth's research data more closely. Recall that the primary data for the first wound healing study was in the form of hand written numbers on a sheet of paper, which Wirth handed to me (JS) saying these were the planimetry readings (area in square mm) of the tracings of subjects' wounds, at days 0, 5, and 10, after skin biopsy. These tracings, according to the published report, were done by the doctor who did the original biopsies on the subjects when he or she removed the dressings and replaced them on each subject at day 5 and day 10.

In four additional (replication) wound healing studies published by Wirth, tracings were no longer mentioned. Photographs of the deltoid punch biopsy wounds were reportedly used for assessing wound healing in some of these four studies. In the first replication study (Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, O'Malley, 1993) we read:

"Dressings were placed on day 0 and changed on days 5 and 10. At each dressing change wounds were assessed by the physician utilizing personal observation and the photography method for the following criteria. In addition to the assessment made by the initial physician, the photographs of the wounds taken on day 5 and day 10 were shown to 3 independent physicians who were blind to the experimental protocol and who were well versed in the evaluation of surgical wounds. 48 photographs were randomly presented separately to each individual physician and they were asked to group them into one of two categories: (1) Fully healed; or (2) Not fully healed". (Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, & O'Malley, 1993, p. 129.)

Thus, photos were the basic data. Returning to the record of the Horvath/Wirth conspiracy indictment, we find the following facts presented (See Appendix B, OVERT ACTS, #7, 8)

"In and around September through December of 1990, DOE (aka Horvath) represented that he was Dr. James Royce in engaging a professional photographer to photograph round cuts on the upper shoulder areas of three purported medical research subjects."

I (JS) did not know that Horvath was representing himself as Dr. James Royce, but I became aware in early 1991 that Horvath was in possession of such photos. Here is my statement on that :

In 1991, Daniel Wirth phoned me to ask for help for a classmate named Joseph Horvath.  Horvath was a fellow graduate student at JFKU, a friend of Wirth's, who had stopped enrolling in classes in order to earn some money before continuing with his thesis and degree plans.  Horvath, Wirth said, had been arrested by the Palo Alto (CA) police on charges of 'practicing medicine without a license.'  Wirth gave me the name and number of Horvath's attorney, and told me that I could be of help to Horvath and the attorney would tell me the rest of the story. When I called, the attorney shared the following details, to the best of my memory. 

Horvath had been manager of a restaurant in Palo Alto, the attorney said, and in that capacity reported a theft to the Palo Alto police.  He reported that he - Horvath - was mugged from behind late one night on his way to the bank night deposit box with the day's receipts, which were now missing.  He stated that he never saw the perpetrator, but the police suspected Horvath of stealing the money himself.

While investigating this incident, the police made inquiries about Horvath, the attorney said.  When the police asked the restaurant's kitchen employees about Horvath, the employees complained that Horvath forced them to let him inflict punch biopsy wounds on their upper arms and to allow photos to be taken of these wounds daily, as the wounds healed.  The employees said they thought this was for a study Horvath was doing.  The police charged Horvath with practicing medicine without a license.  The attorney said that if I went to the courtroom during the hearing, and told the judge that Josepf Horvath (aka Joseph Hessler) was known to me as a graduate student in good standing, this might help Horvath. I agreed and did so. 

When I (JS) asked Wirth at that time why Horvath was doing biopsies and photos, Wirth told me that Horvath was collecting pilot data for his (Horvath's) intended master's degree thesis. At that time (1990-1991), I was the thesis advisor for all JFKU parapsychology students who intended to complete a thesis. JFKU students were required to contract with an advisor, meet with him or her, develop a thesis topic, conduct a literature search, select a committee, develop a research design, and get human subjects committee approval before beginning any data collection. Horvath had done none of this.

Horvath appears as a co-author of one of Wirth's publications, but not one that involves wound healing on human beings.  That report is Horvath's only publication (Wirth, Johnson, Horvath and McGregor, 1992). 

In preparing the current article in 2004, JS attempted to contact Josepf Horvath to inquire about that study, and to determine what was done with the wound photos he had taken of his restaurant employees.  At that time, Horvath was in prison in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, awaiting trial for charges of fraud, arson and identity theft, as well the federal charges he faced with Wirth. Horvath never responded to a letter JS wrote to him in prison requesting contact. Subsequently, it was learned that Horvath died while in prison.

Returning to the issue of Daniel Wirth's studies, it is not known whether photos were employed to assess the wound healing in the remaining three studies.  In the second replication (Wirth, Barret, & Eidelman, 1994) we read,  "rate of re-epitheliazation was assessed at day 5 and 10", and the results section states that the number of "fully healed wounds" was insufficient for the analysis. The next study says, "Wounds were assessed as '(a) fully healed, or (b) not fully healed at day 5 and day 10.'"  (Wirth, Barret, 1994, p. 62). And, "an independent physician" was asked to assess wounds the primary research physician rated as healed, but it is not stated whether s/he was shown a photo of the wounds. The final study says, "the rate of re-epitheliazation was assessed utilizing personal observation and the photography method." (Wirth, Richardson, Martinez, Eidelman, & Lopez, 1996.p. 213). 

Thus, photos were reported to have been used in at least two of the five wound healing studies.

Discussion

This section can best be summarized by saying that the authors of this document have been unable to verify the existence of Daniel Wirth's co-authors (save one) for the wound healing series, the Therapeutic Touch healers, the subjects, anyone who interacted with the subjects, or the research facilities. The description of the data collection process itself is so vague that, taken together with Wirth's consistent lack of responses to questions about his studies, his refusal to provide contact details for his co-authors, and his confirmed history of engaging in fraud in other circumstances appears sufficient to raise suspicions of deception in the conduct of some or all of his wound healing studies. 

The only raw data whose existence we can document by credible witness is the set of photos of deltoid wounds illegally obtained by Horvath (aka Dr. James Royce).

There are two reports of "witnessed" (photo) data:

1. The one evaluated by the one co-author we contacted (previously described); and

2. The one Josepf Horvath was arrested for. (The reasons for the collection of these photos were inadequately explained by Hovarth.)

In the light of Wirth's failure to respond to all questions regarding details of his research, and in view of Wirth's having been a long time co-conspirator with Hovarth in matters of monetary fraud, there would appear to be grounds for suspicion of collaboration between Hovarth and Wirth to defraud at the least in the manner of the performance of the punch biopsies and taking of the photographs of the resulting wounds.

If Wirth can respond satisfactorily to the questions posed in this paper, he can remove the above suspicions.

It is not at all clear what happened in Wirth's five wound healing studies. We believe that the missing details of these studies, together with the facts of Wirth's long term conspiracy with Josepf Horvath, Horvath's false identity as Dr. James Royce and Hovarth's conducting illegal deltoid biopsies and photographing them, demand explanations. We believe that unless and until that explanation is given, the five wound healing studies published by Daniel P. Wirth should be excised from the legitimate literature of healing.


Summary of issues and questions needing responses

First, Daniel P. Wirth has published as sole investigator one study, his first post-thesis publication (Wirth, 1990), in which many details are lacking, and those that are available are open to key questions which remain unanswered.  Without answers to these questions, there is no definitive proof that the research itself was conducted in a manner that is within the bounds of acceptable scientific procedures for clinical research or for scientific publication. Wirth's unwillingness to substantiate even the most elementary evidence that there ever was a doctor, a healer, 44 subjects, or even a location where therapeutic touch treatments were administered, despite repeated requests for this evidence, runs counter to accepted research standards. It would appear reasonable to suggest that without full clarifications from Wirth, no reliance should be placed on this study.

Second, the wound healing replication study (Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, & O'Malley, 1993) employed ratings of skin biopsy wounds depicted in photographs that Wirth reports he provided to several physicians.  The results of this study depend entirely upon these photos of wounds on arms. Wirth was solely and totally in charge of these photos.  We ask that Wirth provide:

1. Evidence of the existence of the photographs of the wounds on the arms of the experimental subjects for each study, for independent verification;

2.  Protocols for the therapeutic touch intervention;

3.Contact information for the physicians who assessed the wounds, in person, or in photos;

4. Protocols for the taking of photographs;

5. Contact details for the healer(s) involved;

6. Documentation of the facilities used for the study.

Third, in the three remaining replication studies, some or all of which may have used photographs of wounds for assessment purposes, we must ask these same questions. The written reports are vague regarding the wound ratings, saying only that wounds were examined by a primary physician and checked by one or more independent physicians.  No other details are given.  It appears that Wirth handled all data collection and analyses.  The same concerns about data must be raised in these studies. We ask for evidence of the photographs, documentation for facilities and equipment employed in the studies, and the name(s), qualifications, and contact details of the physician or physicians who assessed the wound healing in each study.

Fourth, all five wound healing studies make mention of various collaborators, including co-authors on all four replications.  This representation creates the impression of an activity carried out by a group or team, but we have been unable to verify many key aspects of this implied collaboration.  We ask Wirth to clarify:

1. In what ways his co-authors were involved in the planning, design, implementation, data collection or analysis, write-up, and/or publication of the final report? 

2. What were the procedures used by the physician(s) in assessing the wound healings?

Fifth, all five wound healing studies list only a single affiliation for all the co-authors: Healing Sciences Research International, in Orinda, California.  It seems unusual that none of these six people have other affiliations or outside contact information that would allow interested parties to contact them.  Healing Sciences International is a post office box in the U.S. Postal Service office in Orinda, California; it is Wirth's personal mailing address.  We request answers to these questions:

1. What is the nature of the organization called Healing Sciences Research international (HSRI)? 

2. What are the associations of his co-authors with HSRI? 

3. To what graduate degree does the title 'Dr.' (applied to Wirth) refer, as it was used in one of Wirth's publications (Wirth & Barrett, 1994)?

We did not scrutinize the six publications by Wirth that utilized other outcome variables, unrelated to wound healing.  It would seem prudent that they should also be examined carefully.  The study of in-vitro fertilization is the only one for which we have public discussion by co-authors with Wirth regarding the participation of Wirth in a healing experiment. (Dr. Cram never commented in writing on his participation with Wirth and is now deceased.) We invite Drs. Cha and Lobo to provide whatever details they have that would clarify further the nature and extent of Wirth's participation in their study. While Dr. Cha has provided some clarifications (Cha, 2004), his wording does not exclude the possibility that Wirth may have had access to the raw data prior to its analysis by a statistician. Thus, at this point, among Wirth's 20 publications, the only ones that we can say contain data whose validity has been verified by at least one other party beside Wirth are his thesis (Wirth, 1987), the journal publication based upon it (Wirth, 1995a) and studies co-authored by Cram.

Even if Daniel P. Wirth does not provide satisfactory answers to the many questions surrounding his wound healing studies, this public airing will serve a useful purpose. Our hope is that some of the co-authors whom Wirth has listed will come forth and provide whatever details they can to clarify the above questions.

It is highly likely that skeptics will seek to take the criticisms raised in this inquiry as evidence that no credence should be placed in healing research as a whole. The authors of this paper feel that the evidence from the collected body of healing research (Benor 2001a; b; Solfvin 1984 ) is sufficiently robust that the finding of questionable data in the work of a single researcher in no way puts the whole field in question. Hundreds of researchers around the world have studied healing, including doctors, nurses, psychologists, healers, and doctoral and masters students. Seven meta-analyses by various reviewers conclude that the evidence from the better studies is promising or significant (Abbot, 2000; Astin, et al. 2000; Braud & Schlitz, 1989; Jonas and Crawford, 2003; Peters, 1999; Schlitz & Braud, 1997; Warber, et al. 2000; Winstead-Fry & Kijek, 1999). The work of a single questionable author does not lessen the work of these many other dedicated scientists.

Conclusion

We believe that the facts presented above are sufficiently troublesome to warrant a more detailed look at Daniel P. Wirth's entire body of work. Up until now, Wirth has not responded to the questions we and others have posed concerning his research reports. It is our hope that by publicly airing these concerns, Wirth will be more forthcoming regarding his published studies and will in the future demonstrate a higher standard of accountability in his research reports.

The field of healing research has certainly matured to the point where its body of research is robust enough to withstand criticism of some of the published studies. The field will grow even stronger as active self-monitoring remains an integral part of its future.


Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the group of our colleagues who provided anonymous review, feedback and suggestions on an earlier draft of this paper. We are especially indebted to Janet Quinn for her extensive editorial suggestions.

REFERENCES

Chronology of Publications Authored or Co-Authored by Daniel P. Wirth

Wirth, D.P. (1987). Healing Expectations: A Study of the Significance of Expectation Within the Healing Encounter (Master's thesis) John F. Kennedy University, Orinda, California 1987.

Wirth, D.P. (1990). The effect of noncontact therapeutic touch on the healing rate of full thickness dermal wounds. Subtle Energies, 1, 1-20. [Also in Research in Parapsychology 1989. (pp. 47-52). Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow, 1990.]

Wirth, D.P., Johnson, C.A., Horvath, J.S., & MacGregor, J.D. (1992). The effect of alternative healing therapy on the regeneration rate of salamander forelimbs. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 6, 375-91.

Wirth, D.P. (1993). Implementing spiritual healing in modern medical practice. Advances, 9, 69-81.

Wirth, D.P., Brenlan, D.R., Levine, R.J., & Rodriquez, C.M. (1993). The effect of complementary healing therapy on postoperative pain after surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 1, 133-8.

Wirth, D.P., & Cram, J.R. (1993). Multi-site electromyographic analysis of non-contact therapeutic touch, International Journal of Psychosomatics 40(1-4), 47-55.

Wirth, D.P., Richardson, J.T., Eidelman, W.S., & O'Malley, A.C. (1993). Full thickness dermal wounds treated with noncontact therapeutic touch: A replication and extension. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 1, 127-32.  

 Wirth, D.P., & Cram, J.R. (1994). The psychophysiology of nontraditional prayer. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 41(1-4), 68-75.
Wirth, D.P., & Mitchell, B.J. (1994). Complementary healing and insulin requirements for Type 1 diabetes mellitus patients. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 8(3), 367-7.

Wirth, D.P., Barrett, M.J., & Eidelman, W.S. (1994). Non-contact Therapeutic Touch and wound re-epithelialization: An extension of previous research. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2, 187-92.

Wirth, D.P., & Barrett, M..J. (1994). Complementary healing therapies. International Journal of Psychosomatics, 41(1-4), 61-7.

Wirth, DP. (1995a). The significance of belief and expectancy within the spiritual healing encounter. Social Science and Medicine, 41(2), 249-60.

Wirth, DP. (1995b). Complementary healing intervention and dermal wound reepithelialization: An overview. International. Journal of Psychosomatics., 42(1-4), 48-53.

Wirth, D.P., Richardson, J.T., & Eidelman, W.S. (1996). Wound healing and complementary therapies: A review. Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 2(4), 493-502.

Wirth, D.P., Richardson, J.T., Martinez, R.D., Eidelman,W.S., & Lopez, M. (1996). Non-contact Therapeutic Touch intervention and full thickness cutaneous wounds: A replication. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 4(4), 212-6.

Wirth, D.P., Chang, R.J., Eidelman, W.S., & Paxton, J.B. (1996). Haematological indicators of complementary healing intervention. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 4, 14-20.

Wirth, D.P., & Cram, J.R. (1997). Multi-site electromyography and complementary healing interventions: A comparative analysis. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 3(4), 355-64.

Wirth, D.P., Cram, J.R., & Chang, R.J. (1997). Multisite electromyographic analysis of Therapeutic Touch and qigong therapy. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 3(2), 109-18.

Wirth, D.P. (1997). Menstruation and spiritual healing. Alternative & Complementary Therapies, 3, 115-21.

Cha, K.Y., Wirth, D.P., Lobo, R.A. (2001). Does prayer influence the success of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer? Report of a masked, randomized trial. Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 46, 781-7.

Healing Research And Meta-Analyses of Healing Studies

Abbot, N.C. (2000). Healing as a therapy for human disease: a systematic review. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 6, 159-169.

Astin, J.A., Harkness, E., & Ernst, E. (2000). The efficacy of "distant healing": a systematic review of randomized trials, Annals of Internal Medicine, 132, 903-10.

Benor, D.J. (2001). Healing research: Volume I, (Popular edition), Spiritual healing: scientific validation of a healing revolution. Southfield, MI: Vision Publications. (  ISBN 1-886785-11-2).

Benor, D.J. (2001). Healing research: Volume I, (Professional Supplement), Spiritual healing: scientific validation of a healing revolution. Southfield, MI: Vision Publications.

Braud, W., & Schlitz, M. (1989). A methodology for the objective study of transpersonal imagery. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 3, 43-63.

Jonas, W.B., & Crawford, C.C. (2003). Science and spiritual healing: a critical review of spritual healing, "energy" medicine, and intentionality, Alternative Therapies Supplement: Definitions and Standards in Healing Research, 9(2), A56-71.

Peters, R.. (1999). The effectiveness of therapeutic touch: A meta-analytic review. Nursing Science Quarterly, 12, 52-61.

Schlitz, M., & Braud, W. (1997). Distant intentionality and healing: assessing the evidence, Alternative Therapies,3, 62-73.

Solfvin, J. (1984). Mental healing, In: Krippner, S. (ed), Advances in Parapsychological Research 4. (pp. 31-63). Jefferson, NC: McFarland.

Warber, S.L.; Gillespie, B.W.; Kile, G.L.M., Gorenflo, D., & Bolling, S.F. (2000). Meta-analysis of the effects of therapeutic touch on anxiety symptoms, Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 5(1).

Winstead-Fry, P., & Kijek, J. (1999). An integrative review and meta-analysis of Therapeutic Touch research. Alternative Therapies, 5, 59-67.

See brief abstracts of these meta-analyses at Meta-Anaysis of Healing Studies

Articles Related to The IVS Study

Carey, Benedict. (Dec. 4, 2004).  Researcher pulls his name from paper on prayer and fertility., New York Times (Late edition, Section A, page 15, column 2). (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/04/science/04prayer.html)

Cha, K.Y. Clarification: Influence of Prayer on IVF-ET
 http://www.reproductivemedicine.com/Letters/Letters.htm (Accessed 12/13/04)

Jaroff, Leon (Dec. 10, 2004a). Viewpoint: More questions on healing prayer: A medical journal responds to critics. Time

Jaroff, Leon (July 1, 2004b). The skeptical eye (column). Time.

Appendix A

Summary of Studies by Daniel P. Wirth
(Numbers of studies on each subject in parentheses)

(2) Thesis (Wirth, 1987), plus a brief summary and commentary on the thesis (Wirth, 1995a);

(1) A commentary on spiritual healing in modern medical practice (Wirth, 1993);

(6) Six miscellaneous individual trials with varied outcome measures including:

regeneration of salamander forelimbs (Wirth, Johnson, Horvath, & McGregor, 1992);

postoperative pain following dental surgery (Wirth, Brenlan, Levine, & Rodriquez,1993); Insulin requirements in type I diabetes (Wirth & Mitchell, 1994); Hematological indicators (Wirth, Chang, Eidelman, & Paxton, 1996); Success of in vitro fertilization embryo transfer (Cha, Wirth, & Lobo, 2001); Menstrual cycle correlates of perceived power of healer (Wirth, 1997);

(4) A series of psychophysiological studies of healing effects co-authored with Jeffrey Cram (Wirth & Cram, 1993; 1994; 1997; Wirth, Cram, & Chang, 1997);

(7) A planned series of 5 wound-healing experiments (Wirth, 1990;Wirth, Richardson, Eidelman, & O'Malley, 1993; Wirth, Barret, & Eidelman, 1994; Wirth & Barret, 1994; Wirth, Richardson, Martinez, Eidelman, & Lopez, 1996), plus 2 review/summaries of these (Wirth, 1995b; Wirth, Richardson, & Eidelman, 1996).

Appendix B

Selected items from the "OVERT ACTS" committed by Josepf Horvath (aka JOHN DOE) and Daniel P. Wirth, from the Fourth Superseding Indictment presented in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, February 12, 2004.

1. Sometime after the death of Jeffrey Wayne Hessler, on or about September 22, 1981, the conspirators obtained a social security number issued in Hessler's name.

1. Sometime after the death of John Wayne Truelove, on or after August 22, 1983, DOE assumed the identity of Truelove, and on multiple occasions used a social security account number fraudulently obtained with a copy of Truelove's birth certificate and a driver's license.

1. On or about March 14, 1984, DANIEL WIRTH completed and submitted a United States Department of State Passport Application using the name "John Wayne Truelove", date of birth September 6, 1954, place of birth Danbury, Connecticut, with no social security number indicated.

1. In and around September through December of 1990, DOE (aka Horvath) represented that he was "Dr. James Royce" in engaging a professional photographer to photograph round cuts on the upper shoulder areas of three purported medical research subjects."

1. In or around September through December 1990, DOE (aka Horvath) paid the professional photographer with an American Express credit card, account number xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, issued to "Josepf Horvath," with another cardholder, "James Royce," and an address 0f xxxx Rudgear, Walnut Creek, California

1.  In or around 1990, exact date unknown, WIRTH prepared an article titled "Unorthodox Healing: The Effect of Noncontact Therapeutic Touch on the Healing Rate of Full Thickness Dermal Wounds.

1. On July 3, 2002, Wirth falsely stated to an FBI special agent that he never knew DOE by any other name than "John Wayne Truelove," except for the nicknames "Jack" or "Toby."

FOR A SUMMARY OF HEALING RESEARCH SEE

Benor, D.J. (2001). Healing research: Volume I, (Popular edition), Spiritual healing: scientific validation of a healing revolution. Bellmawr, NJ: Wholistic Healing Publications 2007 (Reprinted 2001 edition)

Benor, D.J. (2001). Healing research: Volume I, (Professional Supplement), Spiritual healing: scientific validation of a healing revolution. Southfield, MI: Vision Publications.