It is because of crank magnetism: http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/11/crank-magnetism.html

Einstein puts the final nail in the coffin of atheism…

*************************************

*************************************

atheists deny their own life element…

add some comment moderation to your blog of blasphemy…idiot…

Everyone has a belief system, and it doesn’t apply ONLY to religious matters ( to me, religion is simply commercialized & politicized spirituality ).

Belief systems extend to all disciplines and areas of life which involve SUBJECTIVITY.

For examples, we usually inherit our belief systems about religion, social interaction, and money management from our parents and close friends. We usually get our belief systems about history from school (and thank God for the History Channel).

…and we usually get our belief systems about the subjective sciences (those with many variables that are analogue) from those who taught us. It’s whatever the professors believed in.

Homeopathy may eventually be shown that it is RIGHT but for the WRONG REASON. It’s not what’s in the medicine (99.9999% water) that does it. It’s about our powerful mind, and that’s why “placebo” works. Epigentics research is showing us all this, the ability of our genes to express themselves in thousands of ways.. depending on our environment and our thoughts and feelings.

..But what do I really know, anyway ??

The Buddhist, that I chose to be, coudn’t agree more!

Cheers!

Take a dynamic science with thousands, millions, or billions / trillions of variables, and we cannot yet quantify the possibilites.

Our level of “knowing” is about an inch (25.4 mm) off the floor; the things we don’t know extent outward to infinity.

Epigenetics postulates that our genes can “express” in tens of thousands of ways, and get this, our thoughts and our environment contribute greatly.

High-profile physicists are coming out of the closet and acknowleging that our thoughts control particles, as in quantum physics. A particle’s probable position is controlled by observation, and this observation has nothing to do with eyesight, but rather with thought. So, exactly who’s thoughts control the operation of the universe?

So, it could be that results of homeopathy, placebos, and the like.. are related to the thoughts of those involved with these.

Whether you’re a scientist and proclaiming that you’re an atheist, or, a Christian and proclaiming that there’s a devil and a God, you’re each taking a position. You each have a belief system. Everyone has a belief system, and it doesn’t apply to religious matters ( to me, religion is simply commercialized & politicized spirituality ). It’s far better to be open to the possibilities, remember, there are a lot of variables involved. That’s MY belief system.

Usually it’s ego which gives people the “I’m right” complex. So.. how does it feel to state “Hey ! maybe I’m JUST WRONG or JUST DON’T KNOW”. If you have a problem admitting this to yourself, then, your belief system and your ego are holding you hostage!

I’ve check the Finlay’s web site too, and i can’t find anything either, i don’t know why. But i pertinently know that they performed that homeopathic prophylaxia campaign because i know people from my milieu that were involved in this.

For the breast cancer research, well, I was prettty sure that you would be able to find something that breaks down the research methodology, given that you are very much dedicated on living and acting by your own values and beliefs and that you gave yourself a way to share those in order, maybe, to convince, or to serve as a watchdog for the profession of homeopathy or any other alternative medecine. Or maybe it’s just a hobby of yours! J

As you say in your blog’s description, it is important to keep an open mind. That’s what you’re doing in your very own way, by seeking misleading practices that fool the public. There are so many! People like you are important in that way.

I try to keep an opened mind too when it’s time to evaluate the costs vs benefits of allopathic treatments. It’s not an easy thing to do because it is so easy to become completely polarized in our view; so easy to go about with a narrow mind. Unfortunately, there are narrow minds in every domain be it traditionnal or alternative. When i see myself wanting so much to convince others with the benefits of homeopathy, for example, i know that there is something wrong. I know that my sense of confidence is waning. When we exactly know what we do, when we trust ourselves, be it our knowledge, our heart or intuition, we don’t need so much to convince others or to go about putting down what doesn’t fits our values or beliefs.

I’ve seen myself suggesting people to seek allopathic treatments lately! And i’m very happy about it. I feel completely peaceful with that. I would have never thought that from me a few years ago! When i see the very limits of the homeopathic treatments, i don’t make a fuss about i and i try to suggest what seems to be most suited.

In other situations, in fact, in many of them; i see the benefits of homeopathic treatments and i experiment the results which are way above placebo effect.

But i know that this is far too anecdoctical (non-scientific) for you and i respect that completely. Consquently, I won’t go any further in that view.

Deepest regards

I am having trouble finding anything on the Finlay Institute web site about this homeopathic vaccine program. Where is it? I can only find claims about it on other websites.

And thanks for pointing out the breast cancer study. It serves to illustrate my point about homeopathy and other alternative medicine: the higher the quality of the study, the less of an effect it has, and the best performed studies show no effect at all. That study has serious problems:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/03/a_homeopathic_bit_of_breast_cancer_scien.php

http://scepticsbook.com/2010/02/14/a-giant-leap-in-logic-from-a-piece-of-bad-science/

I read your post with great interest.

I realized that Finlay Institute produced the Homeopathic vaccine in 2007 and not 2008. Doctor Bracho, who works at the Institute, was involved in this decision of producing Homeopathic vaccines instead of the Vax-Spiral produced by the same company because the situation was an urgent one.

Of course, there were no control group. It wasn’t a study, it was an emergency situation that needed to be dealt with the fastest possible mean.

I quote :

«You failed to mention that the Cuban government has already taken other measures to control leptospirosis before all those people were given the homeopathic preparation. They had been vaccinating people with a real vaccine called Vax-Spiral.»

Could you lead me to that information, please. I would be very much interested in inquiring this. If they had already been vaccinating the population with the real vaccine, then, why would the same lab decided to produced the 4,8 doses of Homeopathic vaccine instead. There is something that i miss here, so i would really appreciate that you give me the lead on this.

Nevertheless, what is most interesting, is that this vaccine producing laboratory seems now to be willing to extend this to other epidemics. I gather that the analysis made from the scientific working for the lab must have been relevant enough to go further ahead with what might be an other mean of effective prophylaxis.

Thanks again for this.

You might be interested in this news. I copied it from a site called cancer decisions.

Sunday, 21 February 2010

A landmark paper on homeopathy and cancer has appeared in the February 2010 issue of the International Journal of Oncology. Scientists at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center (MDA), led by Moshe Frenkel, MD, have confirmed the ability of four homeopathic remedies to induce apoptosis (programmed cell death) in breast cancer cell lines in the laboratory. The scientists in question were from the Integrative Medicine Program, the Department of Molecular Pathology, and the Department of Melanoma Medical Oncology of MDA. Their two Indian collaborators were from the Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkata, India, where these same remedies are employed clinically with apparent success. The four ultra-dilute remedies in question were Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium and Thuja.

“The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis” the authors wrote.

It was particularly interesting that the cell-killing effects of two of the remedies investigated in this study, Carcinosin and Phytolacca, appeared similar to the activity of paclitaxel (Taxol), the most commonly used chemotherapeutic drug for breast cancer, when it was tested in the same two adenocarcinoma cell lines investigated in this study.

Phytolacca is better known as pokeweed root, which grows as a towering weed in the US and elsewhere. Conium maculatum is poison hemlock, while Thuja occidentalis comes from the Eastern Arborvitae tree. Carcinosin is the only non-botanical in the group. It is made from a highly diluted extract of breast cancer tissue. These are typically used at the Banerjis’ clinic in India to treat breast cancer. The use of poisonous plants to treat cancer, while unusual, is not necessarily controversial. Madagascar periwinkle, for instance, yields the familiar vinca alkaloids–vincristine and vinblastine. The aforementioned paclitaxel (Taxol) is derived from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree.

Even the use of a cancer tissue extract might be explained in immunological terms. No, what makes these remedies highly unusual is the degree to which they have been diluted. These are given in the Frenkel article as follows: Carcinosin, 30C; Conium maculatum, 3C; Phytolacca decandra, 200C and Thuja occidentalis, 30C.

The “C” Number

What exactly does this “C” number mean? It is indication of the dilution of the active ingredient in an inert medium such as water. Thus, a “3C” dilution means that there is one molecule of an herb like Conicum maculatum in one million molecules of inert medium. It is theoretically possible that a medicine could consist of just one part of a chemical in a million molecules of inert liquid. For instance, we know that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a limit of 2 ppm for polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs) in fish (two parts of PCBs per million parts of fish tissue, per Maxim, 1984).

But as the “C” number rises, so does the dilution. Samuel Hahnemann, MD, the 19th century inventor of homeopathy, used 30C dilutions for many diseases. This means that there is 1 molecule in “10 to the minus sixty” molecules of inert solvent. On average, this means you would have to give two billion doses of a 30C remedy per second to 6 billion people for 4 billion years in order to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient!

TO BE CONCLUDED, WITH REFERENCES, NEXT WEEK.

–Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.