[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[escepticos] RE: Benveniste..(largo largo)
>De: Jose Enrique Tent-Manclus <jtentman en adv.es>
> Yo no entiendo mucho de este tema pero te dejas el *estudio* mas
>importante. El realizado por Benveniste (o como se escriba), y
colaboradores
>para Science o Nature (corregirme), que despues de publicado y las fuertes
>criticas que recibio ya que iba contra el numero de Avogadro. Se envio una
>representacion de tres personas al laboratorio de este sennor (un
>matematico, un mago y un tercero que no me acuerdo). Y resulto que el
>experimento en cuestion comprobado por dos laboratorios *funcionaba a
>veces*. Los tres laboratorios que lo practicaron recibian dinero de una
>importante empresa homeopatica francesa. En presencia de la representacion
>de la revista no se consiguio que el experimento funcionara. Total quedo
>como un desprestigio para la revista por la publicacion de semejante
>tonteria y por supuesto para los firmantes del articulo.
El estadistico era Walter Stewart, el mago James Randi. El tercero era John
Maddox, el editor de Nature.
Al hilo de la cosa, el experimento se replico en Inglaterra, con resultados
completamente negativos y protocolo experimental correcto. Ahora,
Benveniste sigue abanderando la homeopatia, pero ya nadie duda de que es un
completo alucinado: ahora anda transmitiendo la memoria del agua ¡por
internet!. Paca Garsen!
Como viene al caso, fijaos en el mensaje que recibi de Benveniste en
Agosto. Es largo, pero merece la pena.
----------
14 août 1997
>From Jacques Benveniste To Marcello Truzzi and the list of e-mail
correspondants.
(elimino el comienzo, y explico el origen del mensaje. Randi habia hecho
algun comentario sobre la historia de que en Indiana hace unos annos se
habia aprobado una ley por la cual PI pasaba a valer 3... Este mensaje, a
traves de una lista de distribucioin, le debio llegar al inclito Jacques
Benveniste. Por eso comenta:)
Sidestepping the undoubted social and mathemathical subtleties of this
tale,
I have a question: Is this Randi the same person who came to my lab in July
1988 with another professional debunker, Walter Stewart (the man who
persecuted David Baltimore until the latter was cleared of all charges) and
flanked by the almighty John Maddox, the self-styled defensor of Science
against homeopathic breach in orthodoxy's dike? In passing, Maddox's
actions
have left a permanent stain on the magazine he was heading, a stain that
will ineluctably become most uncomfortably distinct in the very near
future.
This improbable trio managed to foul one (ONE, UNE, UNO, EIN, UN... has
everybody clearly understood that I say "five minus four = 1"?) experiment
and in a caricature of disinformation and defamation... provisionally
succeeded in making the world believe that the hundreds of successful
experiments done in numerous labs around the world (none being visited by
the squad) had never existed. On the subject of high dilution research:
Prof. Roberfroid, from the University of Louvain, recently declared to Le
Monde that he has supervised 3600 such experiments in 4 European labs and
that no doubt was left that these experiments were working. He has had
these
data for a couple of years now, but for reasons unknown to everybody
(everybody but...?) he does not publish them. His immelle :-):
<lebrun en bctc.ucl.ac.be>.
In our lab, this research has now reached a point way beyond the "memory of
water". We have, we believe, unveiled the hitherto neglected physical
nature of the molecular signal, which consists of waves in the kilohertz
range, which we have recorded on computers, and sent to any destination of
our choice via the internet network. (This is reported in the following
abstract, also as "doc. attached" saved as "RTF"; a copy of the full poster
will be snail-mailed to those who send their postal address). We are
already
capable of recording, and then detecting, if necessary at any distance,
"digital" antigens, antibodies, and bacteria with viruses and prions being
candidates for future work. A patent has been filed. Industrial contacts
are
well underway. And we have now secured the cooperation of several leading
labs which are actively engaged in reproducing our results, as was done
with
the Northwestern University (see abstract), but with much simpler
methodology. Once done, within a couple of months, a common manuscript will
be sent to... guess who...? Nature, for sure, who else could it be? We
shall
have the pleasure of welcoming a brand new fraud squad. But this time, they
might well be received with a round of gunfire.... :-), and the latest
incarnation of JR find himself securely stuck to the ceiling with no
convenient stepladder to be moved around by some ghostly spirit.
Clearly, the shortsightedness of two high priests of Orthodox Science and a
prestidigitator have delayed this advance in chemistry and biology by ten
years. This is not to speak of the implications of such a delay for
industry. And especially medicine, where Digital Biology could transform
our
capacity to address human suffering. The kind of stupidity displayed by
those three blindfolded whistleblowers, supported by the multifarious
Institutions inhabited by routine addicts, when not cowards, has always
been
the main obstacle to the progress of mankind. Our adventure has not escaped
this obligatory, yet sad, rule.
Now I have another question. How can anybody waste any time and bits and
add
to the Net overload by bothering to answer this "debunker" whose only aim
in
life (and claim to fame) is to apply the tricks of his trade to destroy and
vilify everything he can lay his hands on? His motto: "understand I do not,
therefore it is not", would perhaps be justifiable in someone of more
extensive understanding. Our precious time deserves to be better spent,
notably in thinking, dreaming, researching: courting nature at the constant
risk, in fact the essence and honour of our profession, of being wrong.
Dreams? yes. But what is knowledge, if not dreams made visible...?
J. Benveniste
---------------------------------
Abstract to the congress of the American Association of Immunologists
(San Francisco- February 1997)
TRANSATLANTIC TRANSFER OF DIGITIZED ANTIGEN SIGNAL BY TELEPHONE LINK J.
Aïssa, P. Jurgens, W. Hsueh and J. Benveniste. Digital Biology Laboratory
(DBL), 32 rue des Carnets, 92140 Clamart, France and Northwestern
University
Medical School, Chicago, IL 60614, USA.
Ligands so dilute that no molecule remained still retained biological
activity which could be abolished by magnetic fields [1-3], suggesting the
electromagnetic (EM) nature of the molecular signal. This was confirmed by
the electronic transfer to water (W) of molecular activity, directly or
after computer storage [4-7]. Here, we report its telephonic transfer.
Ovalbumin (Ova), or W as control, was recorded (1 sec, 16 bits, 22 kHz) in
Chicago using a transducer and computer with soundcard. Coded files were
transferred to DBL's computer as e-mail "attached documents." Digitally
amplified, they were replayed for 20 min to W (dOva, dW), which was then
perfused to isolated hearts from Ova-immunized guinea-pigs. DBL staff were
blind though technical incidents revealed the codes of 4/19 files to the
computer operator. Coronary flow variations were (%, mean+SEM, nb of
measures): naive W (negative control), 4.9+0.3, 41; dW, 4.4+0.3, 58; dOva,
24.0+1.4, 30, p= 4.5 e-17 vs dW; Ova (0.1 µM, positive control),
28.9+3.7,19, ns vs dOva. The hitherto neglected physical nature of the
molecular signal emerges: EM radiation under 22 kHz that can be digitized,
transferred long distances and replayed to W, which then acquires the
source-molecule activity. This implies novel strategies in chemistry,
biology and medicine. [1] Davenas et al., Nature. 1988, 333:816; [2]
Benveniste et al., C R Acad Sci Paris. 1991, 312:461; [3] Benveniste et
al.,
FASEB J. 1992, 6:A1610; [4,5] Aïssa et al., FASEB J. 1993, 150:A146 & 1995,
9:A425; [6] Thomas et al., FASEB J. 1996, [7] Benveniste et al., FASEB J.
1996, 10:A1479.
Jacques Benveniste, M.D., Director of Research
Laboratoire de Biologie Numerique, Digital Biology Laboratory
32, rue des Carnets, 92140 Clamart, France
Phone: +33-(0)146015840 Fax: +33-(0)146310277
Mobile: +33-(0)609682501 Adele: jbenveni en LBN.org
------------------------------
POSTERIORMENTE, Randi mando la siguiente replica...
------------------------------
I'm sure that many of you will have seen the rather incredible tirade that
Dr. Jacques Benveniste has just put out on e-mail, concerning The Three
Musketeers (Walter Stewart, Sir John Maddox, and moi) who investigated his
homeopathic "findings" a few years back and found them -- to say the least
-- wanting.
I was forwarded many copies of it (thank you all) and I'll be incorporating
it into my next-to-next book, to be titled "A Magician in the Laboratory."
That book will tell ALL the details of my many encounters with "scientists"
who have managed to ignore the procedure known as science, to the dismay of
their colleagues, and by means of wilful ignorance, honest error,
incompetence, and/or deception, produced results that I was able to show to
be less than convincing.
I'll save my in-depth analysis of the Benveniste broadside for the book,
and limit myself to these few comments:
At one point, Dr. B. writes, "In our lab...." Interesting. Does he refer
to an independent lab? Since he's said to be now employed by Boiron
Pharmaceutical, a leading manufacturer of homeopathic "remedies," it may be
their labs he refers to. I'd not be at all surprised to be told that such
a lab would produce positive results in reference to homeopathy. Remember,
the tobacco companies assured us that their research showed tobacco to be
non-addictive. How could we doubt that statement?
At one point, Dr. B. ascribes a motto to me, which arose entirely from his
own imagination. This is one of the standard techniques of the believers,
and it's interesting to see that he's adopted this ploy. He learns quick.
Dr. B. asks: "How can anybody waste any time and bits and add to the Net
overload by bothering to answer this "debunker" . . . ?" My answer:
Because our team was right, and you were wrong. Sounds like an excellent
reason, to me!
I respect, and always have respected, Dr. Jacques Benveniste. I believe
he's well-meaning, but self-deluded. He is a medical doctor, and in France
that does not mean that he's necessarily equipped with the standards of a
"regular" scientist. (As for myself, I'm the first to admit that I have NO
academic credentials of any kind, save an honorary degree of which I'm very
proud. That does not imply that I'm incapable of knowing how science works
-- or should work.) Benveniste has now caused me to bend over backward to
preserve my respect for him. When he touts this absolute nonsense about
transmitting -- via the Internet! -- the "frequencies" and "patterns" that
can change ordinary water into homeopathic water, and the very strange --
make that "ridiculous" -- notion that a homeopathic substance can transmit
its power to regular water via a simple conducting coil -- OR BY TELEPHONE!
-- he leaves me flabbergasted. This means, in my opinion, that he has left
pseudoscience behind and has entered crackpot science.
The vague references to unpublished yet pregnant results to support this
quackery, are typical of the field. I'm astonished that Dr. B. can still
get an audience to sit still for his declarations.
Jacques, get real. Try hard.
James Randi
James Randi Educational Foundation
201 SE Davie Blvd.,
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1815
U.S.A.
phone: +1 954 467 1112
fax: +1 954 467 1660
http://www.randi.org
-----------------------------------------------
Y unos dias mas tarde, el 9 de septiembre, Randi annade:
-----------------------------------------------
Some time back, Jacques Benveniste, the MD who has continued to publish
ever new and startling discoveries about homeopathic magic, after getting
his academic knuckles rapped by real scientists all over the world, posted
to me a series of questions which he is now trying to get me to answer.
Well, since Dr, Benveniste has announced that he is suing everyone in sight
who says things about him that annoy him, I've been advised -- wisely, I'm
sure -- to save any response for whatever legal action he may care to
bring. I will respond here only to his "preliminary question":
>...how can anybody who says he has
>no science background at all teach
>any scientist what's right or wrong
>in science?
Beats me, Jacques! If you know such a person, point him/her out. I have
no academic degree (in science) but I sure as hell have lots of background
in science. I worked in an excellent biological lab in Toronto, Canada, as
a teen, where I learned a great deal of how to do REAL science, design
experiments, and properly "blind" procedures. That was excellent
preparation for later discovering how the quacks do their work, disguised
as science. You see, Jacques, you've fallen into the straitjacket that so
many academics don, unwittingly; you assume that a person with no proper
letters following the name, must be incapable of logical thought or any
sort of knowledge. Not so! Some folks are a little smart without even
being academically taught. Isaac Asimov once wrote: "[James Randi] knows
more about science that any handfull of scientists I know," and I think
that Murray Gell-Mann and Marvin Minsky (both Nobel Laureates, so they even
outrank you, Jacques) might ascribe to me at least enough expertise to know
that what went on in the name of science -- in regard to homeopathy -- was
balderdash. It didn't take a rocket scientist to discover that. The only
thing that gets in your craw is that I dared to say it publicly, and that's
an academic no-no, which I don't have to take note of. When I see nonsense
parading as science, I have every right to say so, and I don't need your
imprimatur to do it.
James Randi
--------------------------------------
Obviamente, Benveniste no ha contestado.
Sobre el asunto de la memoria del agua y del ordenador, recuerdo haber
mandado algun mensaje a la lista hace unos meses, con referencias a un
articulo que hablaba a fondo de esta nueva estupidez homeopatica en Science
et Vie.
Que contara de este asunto nuestra dialectisma/dilectisima Diana? Y sus
good-for-nothing valedores?
Saludos,
javier armentia