Lionel Milgrom's latest paper, “A New Geometrical Description of Entanglement and the Curative Homeopathic Process” [1], as introduced by Alex Hankey (“Self-Consistent Theories of Health and Healing” [2]) quotes Hahnemann saying that

“The unprejudiced observer is well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience.”

Milgrom's futile transcendental speculations have been going on for six years. This latest paper is light on equations but heavy on pictures and mysticism and further from science (and indeed reality) than ever. But it's still possible to find some things which are meaningful enough to be wrong.( Read more... )

In his editorial introducing Lionel Milgrom’s latest paper, “A New Geometrical Description of Entanglement and the Curative Homeopathic Process” [1], Alex Hankey (“Self-Consistent Theories of Health and Healing” [2]) can’t even spell homeopathy: he cites Simon Baker’s letter to eCAM (in response to “Journeys in the country of the blind” [3]) as “Re: Homeoathy and hubris”. There’s also a citation to a letter written by someone called “Chrastana”. (This is after Lionel Milgrom got confused between Simon Gates and Simon Baker and ended up replying to Simon Bates.) There’s clearly little hope for any sort of scientific or technical accuracy when basic proof-reading is clearly beyond both Hankey and the staff of J. Alt. Complement. Med in which this is published.

In his editorial introducing Lionel Milgrom’s latest paper, “A New Geometrical Description of Entanglement and the Curative Homeopathic Process” [1], Alex Hankey cites “Facing up to the problem of consciousness” [2] by philosopher David Chalmers, which merits a blog post of its own. Hankey’s editorial itself is dealt with in the post entitled Inconsistent with health and healing.

I wonder about the applicability of the new list of “social sins” supposedly introduced to make the confession more relevant, and thereby essentially modernizing the catholic church's reactionariness. But how many of the faithful would go to church to confess that they have done some sort of reckless genetic manipulations? Does the sin of pollution include the way that the Camorra have ruined Napoli? It's probably useful to remember what the seven original deadly sins are for; they are all natural and beneficial human urges taken to unhealthy or antisocial extremes.

It's all over the news (and Gimpy's Blog and badscience.net and Jesus and Mo and JREF) that molecular biology is now considered a sin, along with pollution and drug abuse and that, but it seems the text of Nicola Gori's interview of Gianfranco Girotti is only available in Italian, and even that not from the website of L'Osservatore Romano, where this was published in the daily Italian edition of the 9^th of March. I'm going to try to translate the whole thing eventually. Please point out anything which could be rendered better, but don't blame me for not making sense or misrepresenting. Text is liable to change without notice as I discover errors, but the more I study it the more I feel that it doesn't make a huge amount of sense in Italian either.

In conversation with the regent of the Penitentiary at the conclusion of the course for confessors

The new forms of social sin

by Nicola Gori

Genetic manipulation; environmental pollution; social inequality; unsustainable social injustice: these are the new forms of sin facing us on the horizon of humanity, almost as a corollary to the unstoppable process of globalization. A new test also for a ministry, that of the Apostolic Penitentiary, which works hard to reaffirm even its own role in times in which there is less perception of sin itself. Monsignor Gianfranco Girotti, bishop regent of the Penitentiary, speaks of it in this interview given to L'Osservatore Romano, the day following the conclusion of the course for confessors.

I don't think that Joseph Chikelue Obi ever got back to Netcetera over why he wanted a couple of pages taken off quackometer.net, but maverickly and ethically decided to get lost like the loser he is. That didn't stop Netcetera pulling the entire site today, as if Obi's threat was something to take seriously. It turns out that their Terms & Conditions read “you give us money to host your site, we take it down whenever we get a bit scared or something”. quackometer.net was on its way over to Positive Internet anyway. But you'd think these guys would have learnt by now that pissing off the Little Black Duck is a great way to wake up to several blog posts pointing out what cretins you are.

• Gimpy
• jdc325
• Away from the bench
• Thinking is Dangerous
• Holford Watch
• JQH
• Bad Chemist
• Apathy Sketchpad
• 20__
• Hawk/Handsaw
• Dr. Aust
• Procrastor
• The Bronze Blog
• Mythusmage Opines and Pontificates
• A day at the pharmacy
• Blue Collar Scientist
• Chemo Brain
• WhiteCoat Underground
• Respectful Insolence
• Thoughts in a Haystack
• Nine by Six
• A Savage World
• ZDNet
• The Register
• Google Search
• Google Blog Search
• badscience.net thread
• JREF thread

Quackometer.net is now up and running again, on a better host, so the only losers are in fact Joseph Chikelue Obi and Netcetera.

And see also Bloggerheads (and again) and The Lay Scientist. And lolquacks.

And as of Monday March the 3^rd, something new at LayScience.

It's not, it's vodka.

Perhaps we all remember what happened when The Society of Homeopaths threatened quackometer.net. ‘Professor’ Joseph Chikelue Obi certainly does, as he has taken inspiration from this “Landmark Legal Success” (which saw the original post reposted to a whole load of other blogs), and has decided to threaten to hold quackometer.net liable “to the tune of [sic.: this is a technical legal term] £1 Million (One Million Pounds) per day” for every day that the posts remain hosted past noon on the 21^st of January. (An update: Joseph and Andrew Obi, International Men of Mystery.)

Netcetera caved, but the reposts have already started.

Weak Quantum Theory isn't that weak

Another comment on “Journeys in The Country of The Blind: Entanglement Theory and The Effects of Blinding on Trials of Homeopathy and Homeopathic Provings” [eCAM 4 (1) 7-16 (2007)].

Submitted 13^th January 2008, accepted 4^th February 2008, online 13^th February 2008

I certainly am entertained by Milgrom’s new notion of “the importance of isolation from the external environment (the consultation) in order for coherence and decoherence to bring about the possibility of cure.” It formalizes the position that homeopaths, and the people who feel a subjective benefit in going to them, have lost contact with reality. Indeed, my experience is that a lack of coherence is often seen in homeopaths with whom I try to interact. I am also pleased to note that Milgrom admits that “the wave functions of orthodox quantum theory represent quantifiably measurable observables of physical particles. This is not what the ‘wave-functions’ in PPR [patient-practitioner-remedy] entanglement or WQT [weak quantum theory] [1] represent... They represent more qualitative and subjective observables”. This makes it clear that WQT [2,3,4,5] is useless for answering objective questions such as “does homeopathy work?”

It seems I've inspired a post at bpr3.org.

It seems that Lionel R. Milgrom, “scientist, writer, homeopath,” has replied to my eLetter. He addresses only the point about what happens to the three-way entangled wavefunction when one of the three components collapses, and I will reply when I've had another look at Greenberger et al.