Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier Supports Science of Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

suggests do not exist. Further, there is no other known physical method

that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

water/alcohol [or powder] mix. It's all a complete scam. Either he is

hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work. The

bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

the mix what was there before it was removed. Even if you don't know

that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

millions of different kinds of materials. If the bs theory were correct

then the water/alcohol mix would still contain the " electromagnetic

signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

swamped in the mix.

Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

contains some element of " redness " . The fact is that if you remove all

of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

Not that it really matters. Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever. There

are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

homeopathy even at full strength.

One further note: There is no " science of homeopathy " . You'll sooner

find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Just for fun try to

find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

published.

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Sat Feb 5, 2011 12:20 am (PST)

>

>

>

> http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html

> <http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html>

>

> " ...Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research

> that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic

> medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential

> dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it

> is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the

> original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier's research (and

> other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic

> signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic

> biological effects... "

[Guest guest]

Hi, Roni. What you're saying about medical contaminants being found in

water is correct. But there is nothing that I can see in my post that

disagrees with you. The contaminants you mention are actual molecules

of the product; not some specious " electromagnetic signals " that don't

even exist.

Homeopathic proponents insist that after you remove every molecule of

the " active ingredient " of the [so called] medicine that it still

contains some healing attributes of that removed ingredient. Since

molecules are the smallest item that retains the characteristics of the

" active ingredient " once they are removed there is simply nothing of it

left. There are no residual magic forces that imprint the water/alcohol

with some kind of magic memory of what has been removed from it.

If there is some part of my post that seems to disagree with you please

point it out to me, as I may need to correct it.

Thanks,

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sat Feb 5, 2011 9:21 pm (PST)

>

>

>

> I'm not a proponent of homeopathy myself, but one thing that you said

> about all the contaminents in water is not quite correct. Scientific

> researchers have found medicines in the ocean and in drinking water.

> People take medicines and then excrete them and flush. These things

> eventually end up in tap water and/or the ocean. They have been

> detected, and have been blamed for several medical conditions.

>

>

> <>Roni

> Immortality exists!

> It's called knowledge!

>

> Just because something isn't seen

> doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

> Supports Science of Homeopathy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Saturday, February 5, 2011, 2:09 PM

>

> Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

> suggests do not exist. Further, there is no other known physical method

> that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

> water/alcohol [or powder] mix. It's all a complete scam. Either he is

> hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

> is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>

> If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work. The

> bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

> removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

> the mix what was there before it was removed. Even if you don't know

> that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

> of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

> millions of different kinds of materials. If the bs theory were correct

> then the water/alcohol mix would still contain the " electromagnetic

> signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

> the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

> swamped in the mix.

>

> Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

> removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

> contains some element of " redness " . The fact is that if you remove all

> of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

>

> Not that it really matters. Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

> beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

> of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever. There

> are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

> homeopathy even at full strength.

>

> One further note: There is no " science of homeopathy " . You'll sooner

> find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Just for fun try to

> find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

> published.

>

>

> .

[Guest guest]

>Either he is hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science

or he is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

oh dear me...what a dilemma ...who to believe....the choice is between someone

who regularly decalres himself to be not an expert on anything and a well

respected nobel prize winner!

>

> Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

> suggests do not exist. Further, there is no other known physical method

> that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

> water/alcohol [or powder] mix. It's all a complete scam. Either he is

> hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

> is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>

> If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work. The

> bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

> removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

> the mix what was there before it was removed. Even if you don't know

> that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

> of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

> millions of different kinds of materials. If the bs theory were correct

> then the water/alcohol mix would still contain the " electromagnetic

> signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

> the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

> swamped in the mix.

>

> Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

> removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

> contains some element of " redness " . The fact is that if you remove all

> of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

>

> Not that it really matters. Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

> beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

> of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever. There

> are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

> homeopathy even at full strength.

>

> One further note: There is no " science of homeopathy " . You'll sooner

> find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Just for fun try to

> find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

> published.

>

>

> .

> .

>

> >

> > Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

> >

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Montagnie\

r%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> > trishruk <trishruk>

> >

> >

> > Sat Feb 5, 2011 12:20 am (PST)

> >

> >

> >

> > http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html

> > <http://www.naturalnews.com/031210_Luc_Montagnier_Homeopathy.html>

> >

> > " ...Here, Montagnier is making reference to his experimental research

> > that confirms one of the controversial features of homeopathic

> > medicine that uses doses of substances that undergo sequential

> > dilution with vigorous shaking in-between each dilution. Although it

> > is common for modern-day scientists to assume that none of the

> > original molecules remain in solution, Montagnier's research (and

> > other of many of his colleagues) has verified that electromagnetic

> > signals of the original medicine remains in the water and has dramatic

> > biological effects... "

>

[Guest guest]

Not every concentration has all of the molecules removed. But in one

particular concentration I was reading the quantity of " medicine " you

would have to take to get ONE molecule of the active ingredient on

average, and it was almost 8,000 gallons. Another [higher]

concentration would require you to take more of the medicine than all of

the mass that exists in the universe to on average one molecule. None

of the concentrations have any active ingredient that is actually

effective in curing anything.

There is not one posit of the supporters of homeopathy that has the

slightest support in physics; as a matter of fact all of the claims are

contradicted by science to whatever extent they are addressed.

Basically they are claiming forces and attributes that do not exist;

just magic. And if you allow magic you can refuse nothing.

You will, of course get results equal to chance or placebo. And

absolutely nothing else.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Sun Feb 6, 2011 10:26 am (PST)

>

>

>

> I didn't realize that you were talking about actually removing ALL the

> molecules. I was under the impression, from some practitioners of the

> protocol that there were minute amounts of the molecules left in the

> highly diluted solution.(hence the word diluted) I've tried it a

> couple of times because, as I've mentioned before, I don't profess to

> know everything, and am open to new ideas (new to me).

> I did not find it effective except for a decongestant that I get at

> Walgreens which, for some reason seems to work.

>

>

> <>Roni

> Immortality exists!

> It's called knowledge!

>

> Just because something isn't seen

> doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

> Supports Science of Homeopathy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

> Date: Sunday, February 6, 2011, 6:49 AM

>

> Hi, Roni. What you're saying about medical contaminants being found in

> water is correct. But there is nothing that I can see in my post that

> disagrees with you. The contaminants you mention are actual molecules

> of the product; not some specious " electromagnetic signals " that don't

> even exist.

>

> Homeopathic proponents insist that after you remove every molecule of

> the " active ingredient " of the [so called] medicine that it still

> contains some healing attributes of that removed ingredient. Since

> molecules are the smallest item that retains the characteristics of the

> " active ingredient " once they are removed there is simply nothing of it

> left. There are no residual magic forces that imprint the water/alcohol

> with some kind of magic memory of what has been removed from it.

>

> If there is some part of my post that seems to disagree with you please

> point it out to me, as I may need to correct it.

>

> Thanks,

>

[Guest guest]

Or you could educate yourself a little and not be dependent upon anyone

who is trying to sell you a bill of goods.

The slightest knowledge of basic science will be sufficient to inform

you that what I have posted is correct.

..

..

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Sun Feb 6, 2011 11:53 am (PST)

>

>

>

> >Either he is hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics

> and science or he is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>

> oh dear me...what a dilemma ...who to believe....the choice is between

> someone who regularly decalres himself to be not an expert on anything

> and a well respected nobel prize winner!

>

>

> >

> > Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

> > suggests do not exist. Further, there is no other known physical method

> > that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in

> the

> > water/alcohol [or powder] mix. It's all a complete scam. Either he is

> > hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science

> or he

> > is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

> >

> > If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work. The

> > bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

> > removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

> > the mix what was there before it was removed. Even if you don't know

> > that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

> > of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

> > millions of different kinds of materials. If the bs theory were correct

> > then the water/alcohol mix would still contain the " electromagnetic

> > signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

> > the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be

> utterly

> > swamped in the mix.

> >

> > Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and

> then

> > removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

> > contains some element of " redness " . The fact is that if you remove all

> > of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

> >

> > Not that it really matters. Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

> > beginning and even the products that still contain one or many

> molecules

> > of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever. There

> > are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients "

> used in

> > homeopathy even at full strength.

> >

> > One further note: There is no " science of homeopathy " . You'll sooner

> > find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Just for fun try to

> > find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

> > published.

> >

> >

> > .

[Guest guest]

FYI please see the information below your quote. It DOES happen to be

written by someone who has a Phd in physics. If you understand it you

will probably have a better idea of the credibility of the Nobel winner

you quoted. And you won't be first in line when the next con artist

starts promoting some other homeopathic scam.

Luck,

..

..

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Sun Feb 6, 2011 11:53 am (PST)

>

>

>

> >Either he is hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics

> and science or he is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>

> oh dear me...what a dilemma ...who to believe....the choice is between

> someone who regularly decalres himself to be not an expert on anything

> and a well respected nobel prize winner!

..

..

> Roni,

>

> You wrote:

> > I didn't realize that you were talking about actually removing ALL the

> > molecules....

>

> At the time when Hahnemann developed homeopathy, no one knew that

> atoms existed, certainly not . His most commonly recommended

> dilution, what he called 30C [(10^-2)^30], was in principle a 10^-60

> concentration of the original toxin that seemed to cause similar

> symptoms to the disease being treated. In his terminology, high dilution

> actually potentiated the medical effects, rather than reducing them, so

> he recommended repeated dilution and vigorous shaking, which he called

> " succussion. " The logic in picking a toxin to dilute is really

> sympathetic magic, since there is often no mechanical connection with

> the disease whatsoever, only a similarity of symptoms.

>

> On average, a 30C dilution would need to be given two billion times per

> second to six billion people for four billion years to deliver a single

> molecule. That makes even our national debt seem insignificant. I

> understand that a modern homeopathic flu treatment called

> Oscillococcinum uses a 200C dilution of duck liver [(10^-2)^200]. That

> is one part in 10^400. At least you would be unlikely to catch H5N1

> (bird flu) from that dilution.

>

> A few modern homeopaths use dilutions less than 30C, but their

> explanation is really a poor extrapolation of pathology or

> misunderstanding of the immune system. Those sticking to the original

> formulations explain the effects as due to a mysterious vital force

> based on a spirit interpretation of disease. This is shamanism disguised

> as pseudoscience.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Here's a bit more info on Mr. Luc Montagnier. I thought it might be

interesting to see what others thought of his fantastic discovery in

homeopathy; my previous replies were all made without any research

whatsoever. The claims are so flakey that they need no research to

debunk them if you have had an introduction to basic science:

..

..

Begin quote:

..

..

> Luc Montagnier is an interesting and strange character. Last year he

> was a shared winner of the Nobel Prize for Medicine. A remarkable

> achievement. However, his latest research can only really be described

> as quite bizarre and some of his statements, are desperately and

> deadly worrying. So much so, that I think Montagnier ought to be the

> first recipient of both a Nobel and IgNobel prize. Let me explain.

>

> In the past few weeks we have seen the announcements for the winners

> of the 2009 Nobel Prizes for Science. They are the highest accolade

> achievable by a scientist and are given to honour outstanding

> contributions to their field. Last year, French scientist Luc

> Montagnier shared the award for medicine for his part in the discovery

> of the HIV virus – something that has undoubtedly resulted in many

> lives being saved.

>

> A few days before, we also saw announcements for the winners of the

> 2009 IgNobel Prizes. Lesser known, these prizes honour research that

> ‘cannot or should not be replicated’. The idea of the prizes is to

> ‘make people laugh and then make people think’. Previous winners have

> included decidedly odd but sensible papers on the side effects of

> sword swallowing

> <http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/333/7582/1285> and the the

> word " the "

>

<http://www.theindexer.org/index.php?option=com_content & task=view & id=101 & Itemid=\

63>

> — and of the many ways it causes problems for anyone who tries to put

> things into alphabetical order, to the completely batty papers, such

> as for the ‘discovery’ that “not only does water have memory, but that

> the information can be transmitted over telephone lines and the

> Internet”, from homeopathic researcher Jacques Benveniste.

>

> In January of this year, Montagnier published quite a remarkable paper

>

<http://lucmontagnierfoundation.org/montagnier/article-26-electromagnetic-signal\

s-are-produced-by-aqueous-nanostructures-derived-from-bacterial-dna>

> entitled, “Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous

> Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences” in the /Journal

> of Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences/. The

> headline makes a bold claim: that diluted DNA from pathogenic

> bacterial and viral species is able to emit specific radio waves.

> Furthermore, there are claims that these radio waves might be

> associated with ‘nanostructures’ in the solution that might be able to

> recreate the pathogen. These radio waves do not appear to be emitted

> by ‘probiotic “good” bacteria’. After diluting solutions to the point

> to where no DNA could remain, it is claimed these ‘nanostructures’

> somehow emit radio waves and recreate the pathogens. Luc Montagnier

> makes startling claims that,

>

> In patients infected with HIV, EMS can be detected mostly in

> patients treated by antiretroviral therapy and having a very low

> viral load in their plasma. Such nanostructures persisting in the

> plasma may contribute to the viral reservoir which escapes the

> antiviral treatment, assuming that they carry genetic information

> of the virus.

>

> The claims in the paper are simply unbelievable: that by serially

> diluting and agitating solutions of infectious agents, ‘nano’

> structures can be set up in water that can emit specific radio

> frequencies and that even after filtration that should remove all

> traces of biological molecules, the pathogens can be cultured and

> detected, somehow by recreation.

>

> At least, I think that is what is being claimed. The paper, it is fair

> to comment, lacks any rigour. It is a sequence of /ad hoc/ assertions,

> hypotheses and /post hoc /rationalisations. Important experimental

> steps are described dismissively in a sentence and little attempt is

> made to describe the detail of the work.

>

> There are many problems with the paper, not least that it is pretty

> much self-published

>

<http://lucmontagnierfoundation.org/montagnier/article-26-electromagnetic-signal\

s-are-produced-by-aqueous-nanostructures-derived-from-bacterial-dna>

> in a journal without rigorous peer-review (it took two days from

> ‘receipt’ of the paper

> <http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf?page=1>

> to publishing) and the journal was set up and edited by Montagnier

> himself.

>

> I am not sure where to begin. But let me start with one massive

> problem that should have resulted in the paper ending up in the

> compost bin of science. It appears to fly in the face of one the

> greatest traditions of post-enlightenment thinking in that it seeks to

> reintroduce an anthropocentric view of the universe. The great early

> strides in scientific thought removed human beings from their special

> place in the universe. Primitive views placed us at the centre of

> creation with all things placed around us for our care. We were

> special. Gradually, we learned that the Earth was not the centre of

> the universe, and neither even was the Sun. We learned that we were

> not separate from creation, but part of a continuum of biological

> existence that joined all living things together. Our minds did not

> make us different from the rocks as we could see that biological

> processes differed merely in complexity and scale from the more

> mundane chemical and physical processes around us.

>

> So, Montagnier is proposing that these electromagnetic signals are

> only given off by pathogenic organisms. This assertion cries out the

> question – pathogenic to whom? Are we to believe that these DNA

> signals are only given off by infectious agents to humans? That would

> be a most staggering claim. What about infectious agents for other

> species? Do they not get handy radio signals too? And what if a

> particular human has specific immunity to a virus? Does the DNA

> sequence somehow know that it much switch off its broadcasts?

>

> Bonkers.

>

> This is to leave aside how DNA could actually transmit radio waves.

> The generation of such a signal would require an oscillating current

> at the right frequency. How this could be achieved by a sequence of

> DNA is unanswered – probably because it is physically absurd.

>

> The experimental apparatus itself looks decidedly amateurish with a

> the central detection mechanism appearing to be a coil of wire plugged

> into the soundcard of a PC via a device claimed to be invented by

> another infamous Frenchman, J Benveniste (previous IgNobel winner).

> Few details are given about this device.

>

> It would appear, at first glance, to be a device designed to pick up

> background radio emissions. Indeed, the signals appears to be strong

> around the frequencies emitted by mains equipment and the paper does

> indeed mention that these signals disappear when attempts are removed

> to reduce background noise (such as by switching off other equipment).

> However, rather than conclude that the device is merely picking up

> noise, the paper asserts that the background noise is required to

> induce ‘resonance phenomena’. Your chin should be beginning to itch

> here. It does indeed look as if the experimental result are the result

> of digging around in the noise and finding signals at the limit of

> detection – a classical hallmark of pathological science where an

> unblinded researcher keeps probing noise until they convince

> themselves they are seeing signals. (see N-rays for a parallel,

> ‘discovered’ by yet another Frenchman, the physicist René-Prosper

> Blondlot.)

>

> The paper takes even stranger twists when we look at the background to

> the paper. The Telegraph reported

>

<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4959505/Man-who-co-disc\

overed-HIV-accused-of-stealing-rights-to-Aids-cure.html>

> that Montagnier was in a legal battle with inventor Bruno over

> the rights to the device that can detect the fantastical radio waves.

> Both Montagnier and submitted patent applications

>

<http://v3.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=WO & NR=2007068831\

A2 & KC=A3 & FT=D & date=20070809 & DB=EPODOC & locale=en_EP>

> for the same device:

>

> device

>

<http://lh4.ggpht.com/_vvrFE7Rxtr0/St4hg3_yvmI/AAAAAAAADKg/yoKnzj6LfgY/s1600-h/d\

evice%5B5%5D.jpg>

> The Telegraph makes no mention that the device is clearly crackpot. It

> is worth reading the patent examiner’s scathing assessment

>

<http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wads.jsp?IA=FR2006002735 & LANGUAGE=EN & ID=id00000006\

560269 & VOL=89 & DOC=000162 & WO=07/068831 & WEEK=NA & TYPE=NA & DOC_TYPE=ETWOS & PAGE=1>

> of the application, who concludes,

>

> The invention is based on phenomena which contradict the

> fundamental principle of physics and of chemistry, i.e. the

> existence of biological or effect without an active molecule and

> no explanation or theoretical basis makes it impossible at the

> current time to explain the results obtained.

>

> The story takes another breathtaking turn when it is realised that the

> device pictured above is identical to the one used by Jacques

> Benveniste to ‘digitise’ homeopathic signals and send them by email.

> IgNobel prize winning stuff. This research was replicated

> <http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/1/23#F1> using the same

> device at the request of the United States Defense Advanced Research^

> Projects Agency and no signal was detected.

>

> It would appear that neither Montagnier or were the inventor,

> but instead, the late, great, discredited Benveniste – homeopathic

> apologist and experimenter into nonsense. So, the French appear to

> fighting over the legacy of their greatest pseudo-scientist.

> Montagnier is clearly dabbling in the black arts of homeopathy and the

> homeopaths are crowing about it. My old friend Dana Ullman, whose

> academic thoroughness I took apart when he declared homeopathy had

> saved Darwin

> <http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2007/08/charles-darwin-and-homeopathy.html>,

> is jumping for joy over Montagnier’s research. He is not the most self

> critical thinker around. Harriet Hall demolishes his claims

> <http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2081>.

>

> So, no doubt Montagnier deserves an IgNobel prize. His research makes

> us laugh. His apparatus has already earned the prize when the prize is

> clearly for research that ‘should not be repeated’. The IgNobel

> committee need to ram the message home.

>

> But the award should be also for research that then makes is think.

> And what I see makes me think that Montagnier could lead to seriously

> bad consequences.

>

> Not content with merely trying to perpetuate the discarded nonsense of

> previous homeopathic quacks, he appears to picks up the ideology of

> the homeopathic mindset. Montagnier appears

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLabpKFfDNI> in the AIDS denialist

> film /House of Numbers/ saying that HIV can be ‘cleared naturally’ by

> nutritional means. All it requires is to have a ‘good immune system’.

> I see no evidence to support such claims. Now, many scientists were

> misrepresented in this disingenuous film, but it looks hard to see how

> Montagnier was. These views are not without terrible potential

> consequences. Such views lead to the deaths

> <http://www.badscience.net/2009/04/matthias-rath-steal-this-chapter/>

> of hundreds of thousands of people who are dependent on governments to

> provide a decent level of care for people with HIV.

>

> Montagnier’s status as a Nobel Prize winner lends a level of credence

> to these views that they do not deserve. His authority will be used by

> those who wish to exploit the vulnerable with quack cures. This is

> life and death stuff. Nobel prizes are the greatest scientific honour,

> but they also create false authorities and science, unique in human

> endeavours, does not need authorities. It runs on evidence, reason and

> critical thinking. And that is dangerously missing from Montagnier’s work.

>

> Nobel Prize winners often feel a sense that they are freed to dream

> thoughts that others cannot. That is, on balance, a good thing.

> Science can make huge strides when people are able to think the

> unthinkable. But all Nobel unthinkable thoughts need not be true. In

> fact, very few will be. We need to be on our guard against those that

> exploit the false authority of the Nobel Laureate and examine all

> scientific claims with equal dispassion.

>

..

..End of quote.

..

..

wrote:

> Hi, Roni. What you're saying about medical contaminants being found in

> water is correct. But there is nothing that I can see in my post that

> disagrees with you. The contaminants you mention are actual molecules

> of the product; not some specious " electromagnetic signals " that don't

> even exist.

>

> Homeopathic proponents insist that after you remove every molecule of

> the " active ingredient " of the [so called] medicine that it still

> contains some healing attributes of that removed ingredient. Since

> molecules are the smallest item that retains the characteristics of

> the " active ingredient " once they are removed there is simply nothing

> of it left. There are no residual magic forces that imprint the

> water/alcohol with some kind of magic memory of what has been removed

> from it.

>

> If there is some part of my post that seems to disagree with you

> please point it out to me, as I may need to correct it.

>

> Thanks,

>

> .

> .

>

>>

>> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

>>

>> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>>

>>

>> Sat Feb 5, 2011 9:21 pm (PST)

>>

>>

>>

>> I'm not a proponent of homeopathy myself, but one thing that you said

>> about all the contaminents in water is not quite correct. Scientific

>> researchers have found medicines in the ocean and in drinking water.

>> People take medicines and then excrete them and flush. These things

>> eventually end up in tap water and/or the ocean. They have been

>> detected, and have been blamed for several medical conditions.

>>

>>

>> <>Roni

>> Immortality exists!

>> It's called knowledge!

>>

>> Just because something isn't seen

>> doesn't mean it's not there<>

>>

>>

>>

>> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

>> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

>> Supports Science of Homeopathy

>> hypothyroidism

>> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>

>> Date: Saturday, February 5, 2011, 2:09 PM

>>

>> Unfortunately the " electromagnetic signals " that can do what Montagnier

>> suggests do not exist. Further, there is no other known physical method

>> that can be used to " imprint " or otherwise leave some information in the

>> water/alcohol [or powder] mix. It's all a complete scam. Either he is

>> hopelessly ignorant of the basic principles of physics and science or he

>> is deliberately perpetrating a scam.

>>

>> If you think about it you can see that it could not possibly work. The

>> bs " theory " is that after all of the " active ingredient " has been

>> removed it still leaves behind some kind of " information " that " tells "

>> the mix what was there before it was removed. Even if you don't know

>> that that is total bs it probably will eventually occur to you that all

>> of the water on earth has probably been associated with thousands or

>> millions of different kinds of materials. If the bs theory were correct

>> then the water/alcohol mix would still contain the " electromagnetic

>> signals " [or imprint] of these thousands/millions of contaminants and

>> the " active ingredient " of the homeopathic hoax product would be utterly

>> swamped in the mix.

>>

>> Besides, it's rather like adding red dye to a water/alcohol mix and then

>> removing every molecule of the dye and insisting that the mix still

>> contains some element of " redness " . The fact is that if you remove all

>> of the dye molecules there is no attribute of redness remaining.

>>

>> Not that it really matters. Homeopathy is a hoax from the very

>> beginning and even the products that still contain one or many molecules

>> of the " active ingredient " have no curative powers whatsoever. There

>> are no curative properties in the so-called " active ingredients " used in

>> homeopathy even at full strength.

>>

>> One further note: There is no " science of homeopathy " . You'll sooner

>> find a science of Santa Clause and the tooth fairy. Just for fun try to

>> find the credible research vehicle in which the so-called " research " is

>> published.

>>

>>

>> .

>

[Guest guest]

i'm very well educated thanks james and i'm not dependant on anyone trying to

sell me anything.

i have a great deal of successful experience with homeopathy both personally and

more particularly in the veterinary field ...do you think animals are subject to

the placebo effect?

personally i don't belive in magic but i accept there are many things we (yet)

don't understand.

as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the corpse of a

dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether anything spiritual occurs

after death. a widely held assumption by science (but by no means unanimous)

tends towards the idea that there is no soul and " dead means dead " and some

scientists promote such views as if they have been empirically tested...but

there are no facts here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved. it is a BELIEF

in the non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that claim.

with homeopathy it is my BELIEF that it works because i have seen the EVIDENCE.

i can understand why it would be too dangerous for you to even contemplate that

homeopathy works because once one of your BELIEFS has been shown to be false,

then where does it end. you would not be the first person to cling to

false-beliefs.

> > > I didn't realize that you were talking about actually removing ALL the

> > > molecules....

> >

> > At the time when Hahnemann developed homeopathy, no one knew that

> > atoms existed, certainly not . His most commonly recommended

> > dilution, what he called 30C [(10^-2)^30], was in principle a 10^-60

> > concentration of the original toxin that seemed to cause similar

> > symptoms to the disease being treated. In his terminology, high dilution

> > actually potentiated the medical effects, rather than reducing them, so

> > he recommended repeated dilution and vigorous shaking, which he called

> > " succussion. " The logic in picking a toxin to dilute is really

> > sympathetic magic, since there is often no mechanical connection with

> > the disease whatsoever, only a similarity of symptoms.

> >

> > On average, a 30C dilution would need to be given two billion times per

> > second to six billion people for four billion years to deliver a single

> > molecule. That makes even our national debt seem insignificant. I

> > understand that a modern homeopathic flu treatment called

> > Oscillococcinum uses a 200C dilution of duck liver [(10^-2)^200]. That

> > is one part in 10^400. At least you would be unlikely to catch H5N1

> > (bird flu) from that dilution.

> >

> > A few modern homeopaths use dilutions less than 30C, but their

> > explanation is really a poor extrapolation of pathology or

> > misunderstanding of the immune system. Those sticking to the original

> > formulations explain the effects as due to a mysterious vital force

> > based on a spirit interpretation of disease. This is shamanism disguised

> > as pseudoscience.

> >

> > Chuck

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Trish. Please see below...

..

..

>

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Tue Feb 8, 2011 8:57 am (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> i'm very well educated thanks james and i'm not dependant on anyone

> trying to sell me anything.

..

..

I have little formal education in physics and science, but frankly it

appears to me that you have a poor to none-existant concept of the

scientific method.

I must admit I find it somewhat curious to find a well educated person

who doesn't use upper case letters in most of the appropriate places in

public communication. Your choice, I'm sure; but curious nonetheless.

..

..

>

> i have a great deal of successful experience with homeopathy both

> personally and more particularly in the veterinary field ...do you

> think animals are subject to the placebo effect?

..

..

Quite a number of years ago I was unfamiliar with homeopathy and my

wife insisted upon treating 3 cats with homeopathy. The result was 3

dead cats; but no doubt they would have died anyway.

Generally I tend to lump chance and placebo together as I don't know how

or even if in credible research they are separated. So, yes, that

effect [chance and/or placebo] will show up in credible double blind

studies done on animals. Surely you are aware of that?

..

..

>

> personally i don't belive in magic but i accept there are many things

> we (yet) don't understand.

..

..

You are promoting as being healing a concoction that has not one

molecule of the supposed active ingredient in most cases. Whether you

choose to call it magic or quackery or any other favorite term the fact

is that such a concoction has a 99.99...% chance of having no actual

physical healing effect. Those well educated in the sciences do

understand that.

..

..

>

> as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the

> corpse of a dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether

> anything spiritual occurs after death. a widely held assumption by

> science (but by no means unanimous) tends towards the idea that there

> is no soul and " dead means dead " and some scientists promote such

> views as if they have been empirically tested...but there are no facts

> here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved. it is a BELIEF in the

> non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that claim.

..

..

You paragraph above exhibits an exceedingly poor knowledge to both

scientists and science [as well as logic]. It would be so unscientific

for any scientist to attempt to prove the none-existence of the soul

that no scientist [other than a crackpot] would ever attempt such.

Scientists do often not hold a personal belief in anything for which

there is no evidence but that doesn't mean none of them have spiritual

beliefs.

..

..

>

> with homeopathy it is my BELIEF that it works because i have seen the

> EVIDENCE.

..

..

It will " work " to the level of chance or placebo and no further.

..

..

>

> i can understand why it would be too dangerous for you to even

> contemplate that homeopathy works because once one of your BELIEFS has

> been shown to be false, then where does it end.

..

..

The nature of scientists and those with a MOL well founded basis in the

scientific method are such that they are probably the most certain of

humans that we do not know anything for certain. They do, however,

have a concept of the statistical probability of events that are

contradicted by well established laws of science and physics. All of my

convictions of facts contain an element of probable falsehood. Sure,

you might win the lottery. But if you raise the odds to a googleplex

to one against you we can be fairly confident of the results.

..

..

> you would not be the first person to cling to false-beliefs.

..

..

That is too painfully obvious here.

Luck,

..

..

>

>

> >

> > FYI please see the information below your quote. It DOES happen to be

> > written by someone who has a Phd in physics. If you understand it you

> > will probably have a better idea of the credibility of the Nobel winner

> > you quoted. And you won't be first in line when the next con artist

> > starts promoting some other homeopathic scam.

> >

> > Luck,

> >

> > .

[Guest guest]

Roni, nothing is EVER " scientifically proved " . A result either supports

a proposition, or not.

The results obtained by Dr. Duncan MacDougall over a hundred years ago

are highly suspect for a number of reasons. The most probably

justifiable reasons are IMHO discussed below:

..

..

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr-\

macdouga-t22820.html

..

..

> TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

> Given the philosophical implications of Dr MacDougall’s experiments,

> it isn’t too surprising that they caused such a stir and that even

> today they should still be widely talked about. However, his work has

> never been repeated and its immediate dismissal by the medical

> community means that little formal attention has been paid to these

> startling results.

>

> Deducing exactly what went on in MacDougall’s laboratory after more

> than a century has passed is no easy task, but a possible insight

> comes from some written correspondence between *MacDougall* and

> Hodgson. These letters (which were later published by the

> American Society of Psychical Research) start in November 1901, after

> MacDougall’s first experiment, and continue until May 1902, when the

> entire project was halted. They contain a full description of

> MacDougall’s methods, results and the circumstances of all six

> patients which, when compared with his American Medicine paper, offer

> some clues to the solution of this mystery.

>

> MacDougall’s letters make it plain that, with the exception of the

> first patient, all the experiments were beset with problems that may

> be broadly divided into one of two categories. The first problem was

> in ascert­aining the exact time of death, an issue that appears to

> affect patients two, three and six. *MacDougall* acknowledged this

> with the second patient, where the period of uncertainty lasted for 15

> minutes, but with patient three it is only in his letters that we

> learn of “a jarring of the scales” made while trying to determine

> “whether or not the heart had ceased to beat”. Patient six was

> excluded for other reasons (see below), but in his letters

> *MacDougall* remarks that “I am inclined to believe that he passed

> away while I was adjusting the beam”, which again suggests uncertainty

> as to the exact moment of death.

>

> The second issue was a problem relating to the measuring equipment

> itself, which *MacDougall* himself cited as a reason for voiding the

> results of patients four and six. However, with the fifth patient the

> measured drop in weight at death was later followed by an evident

> malfunction, as the scales could not afterwards be made to re-balance

> themselves correctly. In any object­ive experiment this uncertainty

> would have voided the result, but at no point does *MacDougall*

> question the reliability of his set-up. Thus, of the six patients,

> just one (the first) appears to have been measured without mishap, but

> repeated troubles with the equipment and with determining the moment

> of death perhaps casts doubt on even these results. Thus, rather than

> trying to find a physical cause for the loss of weight at death, it is

> conceivable that there was no loss of weight at all, or that it might

> not have coincided with the moment of death. Only a complete retrial

> with human patients will answer these questions, and that has so far

> not been forthcoming.

>

> MacDougall’s correspondence reveals a man with an unswerving belief in

> the existence of a human soul. At every turn he sought to justify his

> results in these terms, dismissing or ignoring any evidence to the

> contrary. It is, for example, possible that he ignored the results of

> the sixth patient because, in his own words, “there was no loss of

> weight” measured at the time of death. *MacDougall* explained in a

> letter that the negative result was probably due to the patient having

> been on the scales for only a few minutes, which caused him to doubt

> “whether I had the beam accurately balanced before death”. This seems

> like an afterthought used to explain an inconvenient result and one

> wonders what his react­ion would have been should the result have been

> favourable.

>

> To me, it seems that MacDougall’s human experiments were hopelessly

> beset with technical difficulties that serve to make the results

> unreliable and meaningless. It is probable that his experiments with

> dogs were carried out under more controlled conditions as it was

> possible to induce (and therefore better gauge) the time of death.

> Also, these experiments were carried out using a different set of

> scales, sensitive to 1.75 grams (as opposed to 5g with the other

> equipment), and yet no loss of weight was observed. This was also true

> for a similar experiment performed in 1915 by H Twining using 30 mice

> that were killed in a variety of situations while being continually

> weighed. No weight gain or loss could be detected, and the same was

> possibly true for a similar mouse experiment mentioned in The New York

> Times (13 March 1907), although I can find no further details of this.

> One experiment stands in partial contrast and that is by

> Hollander, who observed a vari­ation in weight of between 18 and 780g

> in the few seconds following the induced death of seven sheep. This

> weight change was, however, not permanent and could not be measured in

> either lambs or a goat.

..

..

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Tue Feb 8, 2011 11:02 am (PST)

>

>

>

> Interesting that you should bring up corpses. It is scientifically

> proven that a person loses a minute amount of weight immediately after

> death, and that has not been explained as to what is lost or why.

>

> <>Roni

[Guest guest]

>I must admit I find it somewhat curious to find a well educated person who

doesn't use upper case letters in most of the appropriate places in public

communication. Your choice, I'm sure; but curious nonetheless.

a practical solution to an injury.

>Quite a number of years ago I was unfamiliar with homeopathy and my wife

insisted upon treating 3 cats with homeopathy. The result was 3 dead cats; but

no doubt they would have died anyway.

that's very sad for your family and the cats. is your wife a homeopathic

veterinary, or did she take advice from a homeopathic veterinary? skilled

remedy selection is obviously very important.

>Scientists do often not hold a personal belief in anything for which there is

no evidence but that doesn't mean none of them have spiritual beliefs.

you must have not read where i said " BUT BY NO MEANS UNANIMOUS " (see below)

" as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the corpse of a

dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether anything spiritual occurs

after death. a widely held assumption by science (but by no means unanimous)

tends towards the idea that there is no soul and " dead means dead " and some

scientists promote such views as if they have been empirically tested...but

there are no facts here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved. it is a BELIEF

in the non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that

claim. "

>It would be so unscientific for any scientist to attempt to prove the

none-existence of the soul that no scientist[other than a crackpot] would ever

attempt such.

please re-read ...it doesn't say or imply that a scientist was attempting to

prove the none-existence of the soul...the point is to do with ASSUMPTIONS,

BELIEFS and EVIDENCE. i said i believed in homeopathy because (on many

occasions) i had evidence that it works ...strikes me it would be a bit odd to

say yes, well it did work but i don't believe in it!

>The nature of scientists and those with a MOL well founded basis in the

scientific method are such that they are probably the most certain of humans

that we do not know anything for certain.

i can't comment on the nature of scientists but i agree that we do not know

anything for certain but you don't have to be a scientist to believe that.

>

>

[Guest guest]

There is no way for the government to have any idea how to approach

anything like FTL travel or any other thing that contradicts the well

established laws of physics. The government can't teach you to fly on

Earth without some kind of assistance no matter how much you want to; or

that you decide you are going to do. We are, after all, constrained by

the possible; albeit a fact that we cannot precisely define that limit.

Star Trek contains a number of fantastic " inventions " . Some are

possible within the extension of known existing physical laws, while the

others contradict what is known of physical laws. The first group are

vastly more probable.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Wed Feb 9, 2011 12:16 am (PST)

>

>

>

> That's where we differ. I think that we can do whatever we really

> decide we are going to do, as long as the government funds the effort,

> like getting to the moon in the first place.

>

> <>Roni

> Immortality exists!

> It's called knowledge!

>

> Just because something isn't seen

> doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

>

> > I can't vouch for the soul having weight, or for the experiments that

> > showed a loss of some weight in those few patients. I merely stated what

> > I had read (not on snopes).

> >

> > Tell me, Chuck, when Star Trek was playing on TV, did you think that

> > there would ever be a

> > ray gun like they had?

> >

>

> Do you mean the phaser? That was an extrapolation of existing

> technology, as was antimatter storage. The transporter, artificial

> gravity, and warp drive were truly beyond what we can hope for, at least

> right now.

>

> Chuck

[Guest guest]

Actually the subject isn't being pursued in any meaningful way at all.

AFAIK there has been zero scientific research done; the interest shown

has been mostly new age or religious in nature. Or entertainment. It was

probably only of interest to MacDougall because he had a deep interest

in such religious subjects as the soul. He felt his results would

support his views. That's not necessarily so because there is no reason

to believe that if anything exists similar to what is posited as a soul

that it has to have mass.

Although many/most [if not all] of the critiques of MacDougall's work

were poorly thought out so was his experiment. Such sloppy work today

would never be published in any credible professional source.

There never was much debate about a mind/body connection AFAIK; what is

controversial is mind/body SPIRIT connection.

Regards,

..

..

> Posted by: " Roni Molin " matchermaam@...

>

<mailto:matchermaam@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20\

Montagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> matchermaam <matchermaam>

>

>

> Wed Feb 9, 2011 1:03 am (PST)

>

>

>

> It seems the subject is still being pursued. I haven't read this yet,

> but thought it might be interesting. They are always finding out new

> things about our bodies. More doctors trained

> and experienced in allopathic medicine from cardiologists, to

> gynocologists and others in between have come to believe in the mind

> body connection, and that we are more than just the sum of our parts.

>

>

http://www.popsci.com/sam-barrett/article/2008-10/first-few-minutes-after-death

>

<http://www.popsci.com/sam-barrett/article/2008-10/first-few-minutes-after-death\

>

>

> <>Roni

> Immortality exists!

> It's called knowledge!

>

> Just because something isn't seen

> doesn't mean it's not there<>

>

>

>

> From: <res075oh@... <mailto:res075oh%40verizon.net>>

> Subject: Re: Nobel Prize Winner Luc Montagnier

> Supports Science of Homeopathy

> hypothyroidism

> <mailto:hypothyroidism%40>, " JAMES " <res075oh@...

> <mailto:res075oh%40gte.net>>

> Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 10:37 PM

>

> Roni, nothing is EVER " scientifically proved " . A result either supports

> a proposition, or not.

>

> The results obtained by Dr. Duncan MacDougall over a hundred years ago

> are highly suspect for a number of reasons. The most probably

> justifiable reasons are IMHO discussed below:

>

> .

> .

>

>

http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr-\

macdouga-t22820.html

>

<http://www.disclose.tv/forum/soul-catcher-the-strange-deathbed-experiment-of-dr\

-macdouga-t22820.html>

> .

> .

> > TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

> > Given the philosophical implications of Dr MacDougall’s experiments,

> > it isn’t too surprising that they caused such a stir and that even

> > today they should still be widely talked about. However, his work has

> > never been repeated and its immediate dismissal by the medical

> > community means that little formal attention has been paid to these

> > startling results.

> >

> > Deducing exactly what went on in MacDougall’s laboratory after more

> > than a century has passed is no easy task, but a possible insight

> > comes from some written correspondence between *MacDougall* and

> > Hodgson. These letters (which were later published by the

> > American Society of Psychical Research) start in November 1901, after

> > MacDougall’s first experiment, and continue until May 1902, when the

> > entire project was halted. They contain a full description of

> > MacDougall’s methods, results and the circumstances of all six

> > patients which, when compared with his American Medicine paper, offer

> > some clues to the solution of this mystery.

> >

> > MacDougall’s letters make it plain that, with the exception of the

> > first patient, all the experiments were beset with problems that may

> > be broadly divided into one of two categories. The first problem was

> > in ascert­aining the exact time of death, an issue that appears to

> > affect patients two, three and six. *MacDougall* acknowledged this

> > with the second patient, where the period of uncertainty lasted for 15

> > minutes, but with patient three it is only in his letters that we

> > learn of “a jarring of the scales†made while trying to determine

> > “whether or not the heart had ceased to beatâ€. Patient six was

> > excluded for other reasons (see below), but in his letters

> > *MacDougall* remarks that “I am inclined to believe that he passed

> > away while I was adjusting the beamâ€, which again suggests

> uncertainty

> > as to the exact moment of death.

> >

> > The second issue was a problem relating to the measuring equipment

> > itself, which *MacDougall* himself cited as a reason for voiding the

> > results of patients four and six. However, with the fifth patient the

> > measured drop in weight at death was later followed by an evident

> > malfunction, as the scales could not afterwards be made to re-balance

> > themselves correctly. In any object­ive experiment this uncertainty

> > would have voided the result, but at no point does *MacDougall*

> > question the reliability of his set-up. Thus, of the six patients,

> > just one (the first) appears to have been measured without mishap, but

> > repeated troubles with the equipment and with determining the moment

> > of death perhaps casts doubt on even these results. Thus, rather than

> > trying to find a physical cause for the loss of weight at death, it is

> > conceivable that there was no loss of weight at all, or that it might

> > not have coincided with the moment of death. Only a complete retrial

> > with human patients will answer these questions, and that has so far

> > not been forthcoming.

> >

> > MacDougall’s correspondence reveals a man with an unswerving

> belief in

> > the existence of a human soul. At every turn he sought to justify his

> > results in these terms, dismissing or ignoring any evidence to the

> > contrary. It is, for example, possible that he ignored the results of

> > the sixth patient because, in his own words, “there was no loss of

> > weight†measured at the time of death. *MacDougall* explained in a

> > letter that the negative result was probably due to the patient having

> > been on the scales for only a few minutes, which caused him to doubt

> > “whether I had the beam accurately balanced before deathâ€. This

> seems

> > like an afterthought used to explain an inconvenient result and one

> > wonders what his react­ion would have been should the result have been

> > favourable.

> >

> > To me, it seems that MacDougall’s human experiments were hopelessly

> > beset with technical difficulties that serve to make the results

> > unreliable and meaningless. It is probable that his experiments with

> > dogs were carried out under more controlled conditions as it was

> > possible to induce (and therefore better gauge) the time of death.

> > Also, these experiments were carried out using a different set of

> > scales, sensitive to 1.75 grams (as opposed to 5g with the other

> > equipment), and yet no loss of weight was observed. This was also true

> > for a similar experiment performed in 1915 by H Twining using 30 mice

> > that were killed in a variety of situations while being continually

> > weighed. No weight gain or loss could be detected, and the same was

> > possibly true for a similar mouse experiment mentioned in The New York

> > Times (13 March 1907), although I can find no further details of this.

> > One experiment stands in partial contrast and that is by

> > Hollander, who observed a vari­ation in weight of between 18 and 780g

> > in the few seconds following the induced death of seven sheep. This

> > weight change was, however, not permanent and could not be measured in

> > either lambs or a goat.

> .

> .

> Regards,

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Trish. Comments below...

..

..

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Wed Feb 9, 2011 8:22 am (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> >I must admit I find it somewhat curious to find a well educated

> person who doesn't use upper case letters in most of the appropriate

> places in public communication. Your choice, I'm sure; but curious

> nonetheless.

>

> a practical solution to an injury.

..

..

In that case it makes perfect sense; sorry.

..

..

>

> >Quite a number of years ago I was unfamiliar with homeopathy and my

> wife insisted upon treating 3 cats with homeopathy. The result was 3

> dead cats; but no doubt they would have died anyway.

>

> that's very sad for your family and the cats. is your wife a

> homeopathic veterinary, or did she take advice from a homeopathic

> veterinary? skilled remedy selection is obviously very important.

..

..

The care was by a veterinarian who specializes in homeopathic

treatment. We drove quite a distance to another city for the treatment.

But I can't agree that " Skilled remedy selection is obviously very

important " . When all the options are bogus it really doesn't matter.

..

..

>

> >Scientists do often not hold a personal belief in anything for which

> there is no evidence but that doesn't mean none of them have spiritual

> beliefs.

>

> you must have not read where i said " BUT BY NO MEANS UNANIMOUS " (see

> below)

>

> " as you are well aware, science can weigh, measure and assess the

> corpse of a dead person yet it is powerless to tell us whether

> anything spiritual occurs after death. a widely held assumption by

> science (but by no means unanimous) tends towards the idea that there

> is no soul and " dead means dead " and some scientists promote such

> views as if they have been empirically tested...but there are no facts

> here only ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved. it is a BELIEF in the

> non-existence of the soul but there is no EVIDENCE to support that claim. "

>

> >It would be so unscientific for any scientist to attempt to prove the

> none-existence of the soul that no scientist[other than a crackpot]

> would ever attempt such.

>

> please re-read ...it doesn't say or imply that a scientist was

> attempting to prove the none-existence of the soul...the point is to

> do with ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS and EVIDENCE. i said i believed in

> homeopathy because (on many occasions) i had evidence that it works

> ...strikes me it would be a bit odd to say yes, well it did work but i

> don't believe in it!

..

..

When you discuss the beliefs you assume many scientists have and then

say " ...ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved... " you clearly have

reference to " a BELIEF in the non-existence of the soul... " which you

have just attributed to scientists. And you specifically say that they

cannot prove it; my response is that none of them would be foolish

enough to attempt to do so. To imply that they would suggests a dismal

lack of knowledge of science and scientific proof.

If you were actually educated in the meaning of " evidence " [credible or

not] and to the meaning of " proof " when discussing scientific matters

then you would realize that your evidence re: homeopathy is tenuous indeed.

..

..

>

> >The nature of scientists and those with a MOL well founded basis in

> the scientific method are such that they are probably the most certain

> of humans that we do not know anything for certain.

>

> i can't comment on the nature of scientists but i agree that we do not

> know anything for certain but you don't have to be a scientist to

> believe that.

..

..

Agreed; but you repeatedly present as evidence for a reasonable

conclusion what no reputable scientist would. Once you stated you were

" well educated " I thought you meant in the nature of science [although

you give scant support for that belief].

As for " the nature of scientists " , well they're just human. They do

tend to be more intelligent [at least in the hard sciences] as well as

vastly more educated than those of us [including me] who are not

scientists. But I daresay you will find most all of the typical human

limitations there.

Luck,

..

..

[Guest guest]

>When you discuss the beliefs you assume many scientists have and then say

" ...ASSUMPTIONS that cannot be proved... " you clearly have reference to " a

BELIEF in the non-existence of the soul... " which you

have just attributed to scientists. And you specifically say that they cannot

prove it; my response is that none of them would be foolish enough to attempt to

do so. To imply that they would suggests a dismal lack of knowledge of science

and scientific proof.

i attribute my ASSUMPTION that many scientists believe that *dead is dead etc*

due to the many conversations i have had with a variety of scientists, plus a

fair bit of reading where scientists state their BELIEF is that there is no

soul. the certainty with which they announce their BELIEFS that there is no

soul is AS IF their BELIEFS had been empirically tested and i pointed out that

there are no *facts* but rather just ASSUMPTIONS than cannot be proved. you

seem to have gone off on a tangent of your own.

>If you were actually educated in the meaning of " evidence " [credible or not]

and to the meaning of " proof " when discussing scientific matters then you would

realize that your evidence re: homeopathy is tenuous indeed.

regarding the use of the word EVIDENCE...i have been using homeopathy for more

than 40 years and have found it to be very beneficial in the sense that it has

alleviated and/or cured symptoms x, y or z so to me the EVIDENCE has been

provided.. if i have used the word EVIDENCE in a sense that does not correlate

with how you and/or scientists dicatate...what can i say ...perhaps you could

suggest a better and more appropraite word that would describe the situation.

apart from anything else, you come across as a pedant james.

>

> Hi, Trish. Comments below...

> .

> .

>

>

> > Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

> >

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Montagnie\

r%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> > trishruk <trishruk>

> >

> >

> > Wed Feb 9, 2011 8:22 am (PST)

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > >I must admit I find it somewhat curious to find a well educated

> > person who doesn't use upper case letters in most of the appropriate

> > places in public communication. Your choice, I'm sure; but curious

> > nonetheless.

> >

> > a practical solution to an injury.

> .

> .

> In that case it makes perfect sense; sorry.

>

[Guest guest]

Please see responses below...

..

..

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:23 pm (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> [...]

> you and/or scientists dicatate...

..

..

Scientists and I do not dictate.

..

..

> what can i say ...perhaps you could suggest a better and more

> appropraite word that would describe the situation.

..

..

Yes. What you're presenting is " anecdotal evidence " .

..

..

> apart from anything else, you come across as a pedant james.

..

..

I note the name calling but I will not respond.

[Guest guest]

i think it is pedantic to demand/expect me to use the phrase " anecdotal

evidence " when i describe my direct personal experience of homeopathy.

here are three definitions of the word pedant:

1. one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules

2. one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.

3. a person who relies too much on academic learning or who is concerned

chiefly with insignificant detail

name calling implies *abuse* and i do not believe any of the three definitions

are abusive. had i included a derogatory adjective of some sort then that could

be called abuse.

> > what can i say ...perhaps you could suggest a better and more

> > appropraite word that would describe the situation.

> .

> .

> Yes. What you're presenting is " anecdotal evidence " .

> > apart from anything else, you come across as a pedant james.

> I note the name calling but I will not respond.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Please see responses below...

..

..

> Posted by: " Trish " fielddot@...

>

<mailto:fielddot@...?Subject=%20Re%3A%20Nobel%20Prize%20Winner%20Luc%20Mon\

tagnier%20Supports%20Science%20of%20Homeopathy>

> trishruk <trishruk>

>

>

> Mon Feb 14, 2011 1:44 am (PST)

>

>

>

>

>

> i think it is pedantic to demand/expect me to use the phrase

> " anecdotal evidence " when i describe my direct personal experience of

> homeopathy.

..

..

??? I don't " demand " or " expect " you to do anything. IIRC you asked

me for a " ...more correct word that would describe the situation " . I

provided a phrase, as I don't know a single word description. You can

use it or not totally at your own discretion.

..

..

>

> here are three definitions of the word pedant:

>

> 1. one who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules

> 2. one who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.

> 3. a person who relies too much on academic learning or who is

> concerned chiefly with insignificant detail

>

> name calling implies *abuse* and i do not believe any of the three

> definitions are abusive. had i included a derogatory adjective of some

> sort then that could be called abuse.

..

..

IMHO it's name calling no matter how you try to package it. I really

don't give a hoot; it's not going to hurt my tender feelings. In the

first case you imply that I'm " one who pays undue attention to book

learning and formal rules " . If you had just said that I pay a lot of

attention to rules [especially in scientific matters] I would say you

are correct. Raising it to " undue attention " is a slam [although I have

precious little formal 'book learning']. Two: " One who exhibits one's

learning or scholarship ostentatiously " . First of all I have no

advanced formal learning or scholarship. Secondly, applying the adverb

" ostentatiously " to someone's action is applying a strong negative

description to ones purported behavior. Thirdly: I have exceedingly

little in the way of formal academic learning; the negative part is

where you accuse me of being " concerned chiefly with insignificant

detail " . What I have addressed is massive levels of lack of

understanding and gullibility; NOT insignificant levels. People have

died from following the advice of quacks who at best do no direct harm

but also don't do anything that heals. If I had gone for treatment to

such a person 11 years ago when the biopsy showed cancer it's unlikely

I'd be here now. I want to offer everyone a chance to avoid that fate.

Once I've provided the information what you do with it is your business.

In case you're wondering: I don't have hurt feelings because you or

anyone chooses to engage in name calling toward me. I'm just pointing

out that it really makes your argument look silly and unsupported.

Better to present facts or supporting evidence [if you can]. Attack the

position, not the person.

Luck,

..

..

>

>

> > > what can i say ...perhaps you could suggest a better and more

> > > appropraite word that would describe the situation.

> > .

> > .

> > Yes. What you're presenting is " anecdotal evidence " .

>

> > > apart from anything else, you come across as a pedant james.

>

> > I note the name calling but I will not respond.

> >

> >

> >