"Muamba's fiancee has tweeted: "Every prayer makes him stronger. To God be the glory.". Clearly the results of medical science have counted for nothing in his recovery"

The statement you quote only talks about the prayers. It neither says, nor implies, that the medical treatment wasn't also helpful.

The tweet was aimed at the general public and not doctors.
The general public are in a position to pray for him.
They're not in a position to do surgery on him.

Hence it makes sense for her tweet to concentrate on the aspect it did.

Her tweet in no way implies she believes the medical science has counted for nothing.

" It would be interesting to do a controlled test on this. When people collapse in the street clutching their chests, we could call an ambulance for some of them, and get them whisked off to A&E, and for others we could find people to gather round, praying. Then we could see who recovered quicker. Or at all."

So you set up a straw man of a scenario based upon something someone didn't say and then setup a test for it!

Wouldn't the more sensible test be to whisk all patients off to A&E and then ask people to pray for a (specified) selection of those people and then see if there was any difference in recovery rates?

"The only problem with this idea is that it would be deemed unethical by the apparently amoral, atheistic scientist who decide these things .."

I think most scientists would think it nonsensical. Prayer and medical treatment aren't mutually exclusive so the testing efficacy of either doesn't require the absence of the other. It merely requires the other to remain constant and consistent.

And on the point that praying and medical science are not mutually exclusive, scientists have not proved beyond all doubt that praying does not help..

Therefore, why do you (and others) persist in belittling those who do wish to give it a go?

Afterall, when there isn't solid proof either way, and when someone's life is hanging in the balance, don't you think it reasonable to give everything a go if there is a chance, no matter how small, that it might help?

If it turns out later it made no difference, then so what? No harm done.

However, if you didn't give it a go because you didn't have any evidence, and the person died, but you find out later that it would have made the difference.... well, it would be a bit late then, wouldn't it?

- venice2001.