Sigh. So, in simple words, what is your argument? I haven't really seen you make one. You're just saying that a comedian is wrong when he says homeopathy is a load of bollocks. Yet you don't offer any evidence that states that it's not bollocks.

No, I repeatedly said that I did not take issue with him that homeopathy was bollocks, I said that I take issue with his a priori position that he shares with many scientists, viz that homeopathy should be rejected because 'after all, it is just water, and drug-medicinal action happens via molecules, and there are no new molecules here'. Instead of saying THERE CAN BE NO EFFECT they should say 'THERE MAY BE A NEW MECHANISM OF EFFECT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND'.
There could be two conclusions to the homeophathy debate
1) It really works
2) It's bollocks

But it will always remain true that rejecting a scientific finding because you enter the scientific process with *assumptions that the experiment then seems to challenge* is right up there with the closed-mindedness of religious belief. As an analogy of this closed-mindedness, I suggested that the findings of early quantum mechanics would have appeared complete and utter nonsense to those pursuing research at the time on the basis of Classical Physics. This was an 'a priori' argument. Rob, however, with his really poor ability to see points of view that don't mesh perfectly with his own, translated this into an 'a posteriori' argument where 'the poorly understood but true empirical findings of quantum mechanics cannot be used as an analogy for scientific studies of homeopathy. Then in another of his wild tantrums starts pulling the 'troll' card wtf.
[ ] GCSE Biology and the odd flick through of 'New Scientist' = substitute for substantial formal scientific education. Ciao.

Better things to do.

Internet homeopathy argument>>>donkeyporn imo

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Sorry - but we're on story time here.

You seem to expect us to believe your story just as you expect us to believe 'near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist' when you have showed your method to be flawed and instead are relying on anecdotal evidence & then crying 'foul they want reality'.

IF your genius chemist used placebos as a control and followed normal scientific controls which are there for a reason then why wouldn't his study be accepted? Did he?

I'd also have trouble trusting a chemist making medical claims, since medicine is not (or should not be) a study of chemistry & biology but should take into account psychology as well. Hence the requirement to test for placebos.

So far Manuel:

Excellent post (esp the psychology medicine bit), and nice vid lol. I'm not trying to show he's right as a scientist, I'm trying to show that the reasons to reject him 'a la O' Brien' are wrong. 'The mechanism of medicinal action (and psychological action as well), is *molecular*. We found something that appears to have an effect without a molecular action, therefore reject it. This is the wrong approach. Quantum mechanics is a perfect analogy, it flies in the face of all Classical Physics assumptions, but remains right. You could reject it 'a priori' in just the same way that the 'Memory of Water' is rejected. Shame on you.

Shame on you Manuel - you are guilty of trying to pass of flawed studies as studies by *very* respected scientists as evidence then when the flaw is pointed out you try to breeze past it with a well done.

You argue about bad empirical science without seeming to grasp that your quantum physics example has been proven empirically (enough to show that there is something beyond the molecule) - that's why people believe it even if they don't understand it. NOTHING you have quoted shows anything to back up such a claim for Homoeopathy.

You then try to force the bluff with a near Nobel-Laureate (what is that  - one in the next lab to a REAL Nobel-Laureate?) chemist - and when pulled up on the scientist-dropping present with a wiki-paste about a medical scientist.

GUYS - I'm calling TROLL here. Better things to do.

Read my words again *SLOWLY* and you'll see that once again you totally fail to grasp the content of my post, instead twisting it so that you can attack it with poorly-rehearsed arguments.

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Sorry - but we're on story time here.

You seem to expect us to believe your story just as you expect us to believe 'near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist' when you have showed your method to be flawed and instead are relying on anecdotal evidence & then crying 'foul they want reality'.

IF your genius chemist used placebos as a control and followed normal scientific controls which are there for a reason then why wouldn't his study be accepted? Did he?

I'd also have trouble trusting a chemist making medical claims, since medicine is not (or should not be) a study of chemistry & biology but should take into account psychology as well. Hence the requirement to test for placebos.

So far Manuel:

Excellent post (esp the psychology medicine bit), and nice vid lol. I'm not trying to show he's right as a scientist, I'm trying to show that the reasons to reject him 'a la O' Brien' are wrong. 'The mechanism of medicinal action (and psychological action as well), is *molecular*. We found something that appears to have an effect without a molecular action, therefore reject it. This is the wrong approach. Quantum mechanics is a perfect analogy, it flies in the face of all Classical Physics assumptions, but remains right. You could reject it 'a priori' in just the same way that the 'Memory of Water' is rejected. Shame on you.

[Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name.]

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

Name and links to his studies please.

A brit defending the french from attacking germans, who would have thunk it


The Life And Work Of Jacques Benveniste
Was Written Not Only In Water
(1935 – 2004)

Jacques Benveniste is a charismatic man who has a considerable history as a medical research scientist. Born in Paris in 1935, Jacques studied medicine and rose quickly to become a head of clinic at the medical faculty. After training as a doctor and working with cancer patients, he dedicated himself to research. He is committed to one of the most exciting areas of biological research : the communication between cells, especially the cells which make up the human immune system. He has devoted his life to try to discover the pathways between a select group of cells which are activated when foreign substances enter the human body. Throughout his long career, working both in France and the U.S., Jacques Benveniste published more than 300 scientific articles and with the “Platelet Activating Factor” (paf-acether) discovery in 1972, gained an international reputation as a specialist on the mechanisms of allergies and inflammation. From 1973, he was the head of several INSERM (French National Institute of Health and Medical Research) departments and in 1984 was appointed Research Director.

He was responsible for the development of new ways of approaching inflammation including the patenting of an innovative allergy test. Over the last 20 years, the literature has grown exponentially, and Jacques contributed to this significantly. It is difficult to read anything on the subject without finding a reference to his work.
Benveniste's research into allergy has taken him deep into the mechanisms which create such
responses. Understanding that the smallest amount of a substance affects the organism -"A
person can enter a room two days after a cat has left it and still suffer an allergic response"-
led Benveniste in the mid-eighties, to research how very high dilutions appear to have a real and
material effect upon immune system cells called basophils.

He tackling problems that mattered to him, rather than those that were simply fashionable. Of equal importance, Jacques had an amazing intuition and an ear for apparently bizarre phenomena on the margins of medical science, coupled with the ability to bring them to center stage. It was in the mid-eighties, in his Inserm laboratory, that he became interested in hormesis and in the mysteries of high dilutions. This was the beginning of the “water memory’’ saga.
Jacques Benveniste finished his race on October 3rd, 2004 and with him went a good chunk of
scientific creativity.
2
Scientific biography of Benveniste
ACADEMIC CURRICULUM :
- 1951 : Baccalauréat
- 1953–1960 : Medical study at Faculté de Médecine de Paris
Hospital titles:

- 1956 : Externe des Hôpitaux de Paris
- 1959 : Interne des Hôpitaux de la Région de Paris
- 1961 : Interne des Hôpitaux de Paris
- 1967 : Assistant des Hôpitaux de Paris
University degrees :- 1967 : Medical doctor, Faculté de Médecine de Paris, Thesis silver
medal
- 1967-1969 : Chef de Clinique, Faculté de Médecine de Paris
RESEARCH POSITIONS :
1965-1969 : Part-time researcher at Institut de Recherche sur le Cancer, CNRS,
Villejuif (Dr. J.C. Salomon and Prof. W. Bernhardt)
1969-1972 : Research Associate, Department of Experimental Pathology, Scripps Clinic
and Research Foundation, La Jolla, California (Drs C.G. Cochrane and F.J. Dixon)
1973 : Chargé de Recherches, INSERM Unit 25, Hôpital Necker, Paris
1977 : Head of the Research Laboratory on Immediate Hypersensitivity and

Immunopathology, INSERM Unit 25
1978 : Directeur de Recherche 2ème Classe INSERM, INSERM Unit 131, Clamart
1980 : Head of INSERM Unit 200 : Immunology of Allergy and Inflammation, Clamart
1981-1983 : Close consultant to J-P Chevènement, French Minister for Research.

1984 : Directeur de Recherche 1ère Classe INSERM
1995 : Head of Digital Biology Laboratory, Clamart
2004 : Head of NeutrAct Laboratory, Paris
3
Jacques BENVENISTE - Selected publications* :

BENVENISTE J, HENSON PM, COCHRANE CG : Leukocyte-dependent histamine release from rabbit platelets : the role of IgE, basophils and a platelet-activating factor. J EXP MED, 1972, 13:1356-1377.**
BENVENISTE J : Platelet-activating factor, a new mediator of anaphylaxis and immune
complex deposition from rabbit and human basophils. NATURE, 1974, 249:581-582.
BENVENISTE J, LE COUEDIC JP, POLONSKY J, TENCE M : Structural analysis of
purified platelet-activating factor by lipases. NATURE, 1977, 269:170-171.
CHIGNARD M, LE COUEDIC JP, TENCE M, VARGAFTIG BB, BENVENISTE J : The role
of platelet-activating factor in platelet aggregation. NATURE ,1979, 279:799-800.

BENVENISTE J, TENCE M, VARENNE P, BIDAULT J, BOULLET C, POLONSKY J : Semi-synthèse et structure proposée du facteur activant les plaquettes (PAF) : PAF- acéther, un alkyl éther analogue de la lysophosphatidylcholine. C R ACAD SCI PARIS, 1979, 289, série D:1037-1040.**

CHAP H, MAUCO G, SIMON MF, BENVENISTE J, DOUSTE-BLAZY L : Biosynthetic labelling of platelet-activating factor (paf-acether) from radioactive acetate by stimulated platelets. NATURE, 1981, 289:312-314.

DAVENAS E, BEAUVAIS F, AMARA J, OBERBAUM M, ROBINZON B, MIADONNA A, TEDESCHI A, POMERANZ B., FORTNER P, BELON P, SAINTE-LAUDY J, POITEVIN B, BENVENISTE J : Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE. NATURE, 1988, 333-816-818.

BENVENISTE J, DAVENAS E, DUCOT B., CORNILLET B., POITEVIN B, SPIRA A : L’agitation de solutions hautement diluées n’induit pas d’activité biologique spécifique. C R ACAD SCI PARIS,1991,312,série II:461-466.

BEAUVAIS F, SHIMAHARA T, INOUE I, BENVENISTE J : Anti-IgE induces the opening of non selective cation channels on human basophils. FUNDAM CLIN PHARMACOL, 1994, 8:246-250.

NGUER CM, PELLEGRINI O, GALANAUD P, BENVENISTE J, THOMAS Y, RICHARD Y : Regulation of paf-acether receptor expression in human B cells. J IMMUNOL, 1992, 149:2742-2748.

CALABRESSE C, NGUER CM, PELLEGRINI O, BENVENISTE J, RICHARD Y, THOMAS Y : Induction of high-affinity paf-acether receptor expression during T cell activation. EUR J IMMUNOL, 1992, 22:1349-1355.
4

BEAUVAIS F, HIEBLOT C, BURTIN C, BENVENISTE J : Regulation of human basophil activation. III. Impairment of the inhibitory effect of Na+ on IgE-mediated histamine release in patients with allergic rhinitis. J ALLERGY CLIN IMMUNOL, 1992, 90:52-58.

BEAUVAIS F, HIEBLOT C, BURTIN C, BENVENISTE J : Regulation of human basophil activation. IV. Dissociation between cationic dye binding and histamine release : role of Ca2+ ions. FUNDAM CLIN PHARMACOL, 1992, 6:153-158.

EL AZZOUZI B, JURGENS P, BENVENISTE J, THOMAS Y : Immunoregulatory functions of paf-acether. IX. Modulation of apoptosis in an immature human T cell line. BIOCHEM BIOPH RES COMMUN, 1993, 190:320-324.
BIDET B, LEBOYER M, DESCOURS B, BOUVARD MP, BENVENISTE J : Allergic
sensitization in infantile autism. J AUTISM DEVELOP DISORD, 1993, 23:419-420.

PELLEGRINI O, DAVENAS E, MORIN L, BENVENISTE J, MANUEL Y, THOMAS Y : Stress proteins in human lymphocytes. II. Modulation of stress proteins in a human T cell line. EUR J PHARMAC, 1994, 270:221-228.

EL AZZOUZI B, TSANGARIS G, PELLEGRINI O, BENVENISTE J, MANUEL Y, THOMAS Y : Cadmium induces apoptosis in a human T cell line. TOXICOLOGY, 1994, 88:127-139.

HILLIQUIN P, NATOUR J, AISSA J, GUINOT P, LAOUSSADI S, BENVENISTE J, MENKES , ARNOUX B : Treatment of carrageenan-induced arthritis by platelet- activating factor (paf) antagonist BN 50730. ANN RHEUM DIS, 1995, 54:140-143.

HILLIQUIN P, HARRAN H, AISSA J, BENVENISTE J, MENKES : Correlations between paf-acether and tumor necrosis factor in rheumatoid arthritis. SCAND J RHEUM, 1995, 24:169-173.

GUIMBAUD R, IZZO A, MARTINOLLE JP, VIDON N, COUTURIER D, BENVENISTE J, CHAUSSADE S : Intraluminal excretion of paf, lysopaf, and acetylhydrolase in patients with ulcerative colitis. DIGEST DIS SCI, 1995, 40:2635-2640.

KORTH RM, HIRAFUJI M, BENVENISTE J, RUSSO-MARIE F : Human umbilical vein endothelial cells : specific binding of platelet-activating factor and cytosolic calcium flux. BIOCHEM PHARMAC, 1995, 49:1793-1799.

AÏSSA J, HARRAN H, RABEAU M, BOUCHERIE S, BROUILHET H, BENVENISTE J : Tissue levels of histamine, paf-acether and lysopaf-acether in carrageenan-induced granuloma in rats. INT ARCH ALLERGY IMMUNOL, 1996, 110:182-186.

F.Joly, D.Poisson, P.Clauser, J.Akimjak, L. Kahhak, J. Bidault, Y. Thomas, J. Benveniste : Effet du nitrate d'éconazol dans un modèle d'inflammation sous-cutanée chez le rat. La lettre du Pharmacologue, 1995, 9: 125-127.
5

L. Kahhak, A. Roche, C. Dubray, C. Arnoux and J. Benveniste : Decrease of ciliary beat frequency by platelet-activating factor; Protective effect of ketotifen. Inflammation Research, 1996, 45: 234-238.

Y. Thomas, M. Schiff, L. Belkadi, P. Jurgens, L. Kahhak and J. Benveniste : Activation of human neutrophils by electronically transmitted Phorbol-Myristae Acetate. Medical Hypotheses, 2000, 54(1) : 33-39.

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

LOL - But surely to state that *very* best scientist studies have suggested it worked, given that you know the flaws in those very studies, puts you further past the 'trusted opinion on science' pale than Mr O'Brien's bit of deserved (in my view) comic criticism of those charlatans who claim that it works?

And let's face it IT IS JUST FECKING WATER.

If a bunch of bog standard scientists had come up with experimental results that seemed to fly in the face of common sense, reason, and other empirical data, the first things you would suggest would be that their methodology, measurement or results were wrong. Less likely to find these in a near Nobel-Laureate genius experimental chemist with many successful drugs to his name. So instead of attacking his methods, some attacked the very notion that he could be right, since it just appeared to be water. And water has no memory.

[my friend had arthritis for many many years and took special treated water for just a year and now she is playing volleyball every week. What are you calling this, a fluke? Millions of people take homeopathic medicine, what are you saying, they are all NUTS?]

lol Manuel, you do realise that Dara is not a lecturer, right? He's a comedian, he exaggerates for comedic effect.

On top of which he's obviously right and homeopathy is a massive load of bollocks.

I've met him, he's a clever man, good degree in mathematics, he knows what he's talking about, just happens to be funny enough to be a comic.
I take issue with your 'homeophathy is a massive load of bollocks' assertion, my friend had arthritis for many many years and took special treated water for just a year and now she is playing volleyball every week. What are you calling this, a fluke? Millions of people take homeopathic medicine, what are you saying, they are all NUTS?

Yes. "Took specially treated water", indeed. Billions of people "believe" in God, I'll call them all nuts as well until someone can show me that they are not talking complete and utter nonsense.

Science cannot know everything, human reason is by its nature very limited.
Here is Dara getting it very wrong about the evolution of the eye.

lol Manuel, you do realise that Dara is not a lecturer, right? He's a comedian, he exaggerates for comedic effect.

On top of which he's obviously right and homeopathy is a massive load of bollocks.

I've met him, he's a clever man, good degree in mathematics, he knows what he's talking about, just happens to be funny enough to be a comic.
I take issue with your 'homeophathy is a massive load of bollocks' assertion, my friend had arthritis for many many years and took special treated water for just a year and now she is playing volleyball every week. What are you calling this, a fluke? Millions of people take homeopathic medicine, what are you saying, they are all NUTS?

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

I'm calling FOUL here as well, I've yet to see a proper Homoeopathy study where they have passed a peer review on their methods - so I sincerely doubt the *very*  (especially when the studies AVOID trying the placebo to check for placebo effect when proper studies do include it).

Very good, the central issue was the placebo effect.
However O'Brien's complaint that 'IT'S JUST WATER' puts him in the same camp as those who rejected the findings on the 'a priori' principle that if you can't demonstrate the same broad mechanism as common medicines (molecular action) it must be crap. To reject based on such a principle is really bad empirical science. If such an approach was valid, quantum mechanics could have been rejected right at the start. eg *Nothing travels faster than the speed of light* *Nothing comes from nothing* *If you know where everthing is and what forces are involved, you can say where everything will be in the next stage*. All common sense assumptions, just like 'molecules are the vehicle of chemical action', all widely held, all wrong.

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Are you seriously comparing the validity of quantum mechanics and homeopathy?

Pls read my post again slowly and you'll see that I'm obviously not. Quantum mechanics is the science of the very small. Something you should know plenty about

And this time they added 2 caveats... Do you think it's because they are big fans of RB and NotW?

I think it's because Brooks and the NotW are as reliable as a Fiat with over 100,000 miles on the clock.

So that's why the BBC added things in defence of them?

The BBC is so fond of being perfectly balanced they could have a discussion on if the world is round and get a bloke from the flat earth society on to argue the opposite and give him equal time.

Think that's a pretty poor example, surely the purpose of a debate is to give both sides equal time?

There are also entire websites devoted to how "unbalanced" the BBC is...

No, some sides don't deserve to be given equal time in a debate.  If one side presents evidence and valuable input and the other just says "no, don't believe that" with no evidence, etc., then they don't have anything to add.

(NSFW)
 

(one minute in )

I agree with him, it is a bit harsh. So overall, I disagree with his Philosophy of Science, it's kind of bad and history has proven it bad. There have been many trials that suggest homeopathy is a load of crap, there have been many trials, by the *very* best scientists that have suggested it works. O'Brian et al's problem seems to be that we cannot see the normal mechanism at play (ie molecular action) therefore it must be wrong. There have been lots of examples in the history of science (including the last 100 years) where if we had rejected something with common sense and *in principle* instead of concentrating on the empirical evidence, we would have been wrong. E.g. quantum mechanics.

Define hacked phone? None of it was really hacking, just accessing the voicemail using the default pin.

Well it's a phone, that has been hacked

It's a phone, it wasn't hacked, none of the others were, they accessed the voice mails illegally by using the default pin. Unless the accusation is the pin on the voice mail was specifically changed to allow them access before it was given (and I haven't heard that mentioned) then the only way the giving of the phone helped is that it created the voice mail for them to access.

It's not like they planted a listening device in the phone is it? (unless they did of course, I guess you can't rule it out).

If you leave your front door unlocked & someone waltzes in and steals all your stuff - they still get done for breaking and entering. It might not be hacking in a computer-geek subverting security kind of way - but trying the default password is the same as trying all combinations.

Pretty sure they knew the voicemail code when they gave the phone to her, so not hacking.
If you don't know the passcode and you try the default, you are certainly hacking, yes. It was just an easy hack.
But if you know the code then use this to listen to messages illegally, it's not hacking, and not a 'hacked phone'. Didn't stop all the mainstream news from calling it hacking/hacked phone though.

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

They tried listening in before then, ldo.

If that was the reason NOTW sure are gonna come out with that statement in their defence ldo

How do they know that her voicemail wasn't activated until the last 18 months?

[The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Sara Payne by Rebekah Brooks as a gift to help her stay in touch with her supporters.]

Wow,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/28/phone-hacking-sarah-payne

The evidence that police have found in Mulcaire's notes is believed to relate to a phone given to Sara Payne by Rebekah Brooks as a gift to help her stay in touch with her supporters.

wow this is lower than low.

Other than the fact they gave her the phone, which is not really the relevant matter surely, what's the difference between this and the Milly Dowler case, genuinely asking as I don't see how it is ?

Given that no senior executives were charged over hacking for so long, and yet it is so unlikely that they weren't involved, the previous setups eg Milly Dowler have always had a degree of space separating the dirty deed from the people at the top. In this case, however, the Lying King herself has handed over what is possibly the instrument of privacy invasion. Possible that she knew nothing of how instrumental this action was, but it certainly won't be perceived that way.