Medical Historians Agree Lourdes Cures are Inexplainable

 

Someone misinterpreted my thing on SN to think I was against miracles, I used to argue for them on carm all the time, I have several pages defending Lurdes miracles on Doxa This article is a review of a journalism Clarice medical historians examining the evidence for Lourdes miracles, they do express the expectation that some day science will explain but they admit that at present it can;t.


In an article entitled “The Lourdes Medical Cures Revisited” Bernard Francis, Ester M. Sternberg and Elizabeth Fee provide something closer to a scientific appraisal.[1] They studied 411 patents cured in 1909-14 and thoroughly reviewed 25 cures acknowledged between 1927 and 1976. By “acknowledged” they mean cures that were officially declared “Miracles” by the church. “the Lourdes Phenomena extraordinary in many respects still awaits scientific explanation.”[2] They took the 411 cures from the era known as “the golden age or Lourdes.” This is the period from 1909-14 which was the time when the popularity was at its height, the medical committee was functioning smoothly with new rules, and crowds were pouring in. In the early days right after the visions began there were many claims of miracles that went unrecorded, or that were not help up to a scrutiny of criteria or that weren’t recorded in a systematic fashion. This state of affairs evolved through the late ninetieth century with the imposition of rules and the evolution of the medical board. Since the 70’s the official miracles have stopped and the crowds are way down and these is less of sense of miracles going on. This is largely because of the great proficiency of medical diagnosis and treatment as well as the strident nature of the rules. The situation vastly improved as a fine tuned medical miracle documenting machine evolved out of the end of the ninetieth century.
            Data on the early period is found in the archives of the sanctuary of Notre Dame of Lourdes (April 1868-June 1944). Those archives provide mainly unsubstantiated and anecdotal evidence. They also used Ruth Harris’s scholarly work Lourdes, Body and Spirit in the Secular Age. For the period 1885-1914 they also used Annales of Notre Dame de Lourdes vol 17-47, George Bertirins Historie Critique Des Evenments de Lourdes,  and a host of other materials.[3] The Authors set out to determine if Lourdes cures really were cures. Their working methodology for this task was to evaluate the nature of the disease and then to assess the nature of the diagnostic criteria and evidence used for deciding that cure had occurred. The criteria improved over the years as diagnostic ability improved. They studied 411 patents cured between 1911-1914 and thoroughly reviewed 25 cures between 1947 and present. Their conclusion “the Lourdes phenomena still extraordinary in many respects still awaits scientific explanation.”[4] The nature of the cures has changed over time. The medical committee was not in place in the beginning and it had different periods of improvement. Speaking of the “golden age” around 1914, Francis and his colleagues write, “led by talented position Boissarie, and his assistant Dr. Cox,  the medical Bureau is said to have improved its method and gained a reputation for excellence, but it faced a daunting task…150,000 pilgrims a year.”[5] Yet some of the cures of that era were deemed “remarkable.” Marie Lebranchu and Marie Lemarchand cured of Pulmonary Tuberculosis. That cure was attended by the famous atheist writer Emile Zola; Grabiel Gargam cured of post traumatic paraplegia in 1901 and several others.[6] Prior to the cure patents were described as being in decline or in an “alarming state of health.” After “patients confined to bed for years would stand and walk regain their weight resume their prior activity. 96 cured patients were evaluated again one year latter...they were found healthy and as far as we now the recoveries stood he test of time.”[7] Modern researchers reading the accounts of many female patents form this period can sense the neurotic nature of some symptoms. There were obvious cases hysteria. There are also cases of anatomical abnormalities. “Scores of visiting physicians witnessed the disappearance of macroscopic lesions, easy to identify such as external tumors, urine fibromass, and open wounds and suppurative fecal fistulae.”[8]
            The cures were said to be instantaneous is 59 percent of 382 cases for which they had adequate records; this is all within the gold age period.[9] During the golden age there were strange spontaneous healings in the town in such places as breakfast table, during a procession, in the hospital ward in town.[10] Apparently it was WWI that put the Kybosh on the golden age. The committee changed leadership many times and doctors were scarce due to the war.[11] 1947-2006 was marked by improved diagnostics, new young physicians more careful attitudes. The created an international committee designed to review the work of the Bureau.[12]  There are 25 patients cured and their cures analyzed form this period. The Francis article is extremely though with sound medical and scholarly caution. They take a critical view of the subject mater and the data. The data is very thorough. They use a huge number of sources. They tally the kinds of diagnosis and which diseases were the most cured and the most reported. TB was always the leading disease and GI tract problems were very common. The authors describe a development over time from an early phase of inadequate reporting and uncritical acceptance of cure, to a modern set up which is well regarded and scientific.[13] Those standards of excellence are now outdated, the rules have been upgraded. Modern controversy stems form the declining reports due to better diagnostics and the difficulty in finding someone who hasn’t sought medical cures. There is a controversy over relaxing the rules. Thus all of this leads Francis et al to speak of “cures” rather than Miracles.

The Critical assessment of the authors:

             If skeptics seek absolute scientific proof so strong that they can’t argue and if they seek to be completely won over such that they can no longer struggle with doubt, they are no going to find that kind of absolute proof in this article, and I suspect not at Lourdes or anywhere else. On the other hand there is more than enough here to totally do away with the knee jerk bigotry that says Lourdes miracles are nonsense, just laudable stupidity and a thing of derision to be classed with UFO abductions. That sort of view is totally disproved by the article. If one takes the article as evidence of supernatural reality its not without its problems. If one allows the article shed light on the question of supernatural effects, there’s more than enough evidence to see that one can reasonably place confidence in such notions.  In their critical assessment the authors find that the word “cure” is misunderstood. It is not taken as a euphemism for “miracle.” Nor does it imply absolute knowledge of a permanent state of removal of disease. They are improvements in the state of health. “By cross checking avaible data we arrived at a rough estimate of medical events acknowledged as ‘cures’ as 4,516, in the period 1858-1976.”[14] Now most of these cures occurred before WWII and were most of them were based upon what is described as “flimsy evidence.” There was an expectation of miracles and no follow up. For that reason the authors find that it is impossible to access the number of valid cures before 1947. that’s not to say that there aren’t cases that can’t be validated individually.  There has been a decline in the number of cures for the last one hundred years, and the authors list several factors as the reason for this: increasing efficiency of modern medicine (diagnostic equipment and better definitions for the nature of a condition), moreover Lambertini’s canons that had to be acknowledged to qualify a miracle have actually stood in the way of being able to declare many cases as miracles.
            The requirements for these canons are as follows: (a) must be sever, incurable, or difficult to treat, (b) not to be in a final stage (c) no curative treatment given (d) the cure must be instantaneous (d) cure must be complete without relapse. One can see this is so strict that’s one of the major reasons there are so few official miracles. There are examples from certain periods where Lambertini canons have just been violated, but in do doing they found remarkable cures. In their series of study of twenty five cured patients six were cured of terminally ill diseases, eight were cured in a matter of days or months, or some even years, this is a sharp departure. The canons “seem to have been rescinded” in 2006. They just made it too difficult to find anyone who fills the bill.” It was obvious they no longer applied to what was observed.”[15] That’s one thing that makes for the category I’ve spoken of before of the “remarkable case.” There are only 67 official miracles but 7000 remarkable cases. Those are based upon modern study of the committee not part of this study. Miracles are not for the Catholic Church on the same level as the sacraments or the creeds so belief in them is not obligatory.[16] A parallel is drawn by the author between their work and that of Jacquelyn Douffin. The Pathetical conditions are the same the proportion of tuberculosis neurological disorders and GI diseases were distributed in similar fashion and the manner of the cures were the same.
            The authors find that the history of Lourdes unfolds like the history of medicine itself. The diseases were diverse the accuracy of diagnosis and follow up badly done in the beginning and growing in sharpness and accuracy over time. That is no disproof of miracles. One of the findings of the authors is that “the Lourdes cures have been “beyond the natural course of nature, ” not “contrary to nature” or “breaking natural law.” To give an example they use the distinction between a case of pulmonary tuberculosis considered incurable, vs. growing back an amputated limb, which is contrary to nature, breaking the law of nature.[17] That’s a problematic statement as we will find in the next chapter. If physical laws are nothing more then descriptions of our observations about how the universe behaves than nothing we find can be contrary to that law because that’s what we find happening. On the other to make such a distinction between “the course” of nature, which is based upon our observations, and “laws” assumes form the outset the understanding of a higher law. For skeptic to make use of the distinction is acknowledge the need for a higher sense of order (“law”) as opposed to just they way we observe the universe.
            Mangiapan did the only retrospective study from 1947-76. “Thirteen patients out of twenty-five (tables 3 and 4) died nineteen to fifty-seven years after the cure and without relapse of the disease. For nine subjects living in 2008, the time elapsed since the cure was ten to fifty-four years.[18] They find that four cases of multiple sclerosis had remissions of four year duration that is equivalent to assumed cure. Four cases of tb were actually cured. The speed of the curse is without known equivalent and makes for remarkable cases. Two were taken out of the study key requirements weren’t met. Of twenty-five they have misgivings about eight. The reasons for this are: (a) all the criteria were not met, (b) lack diagnostic evidence, (c) inadequate follow-up (d) possible influence of possible treatments (e) possible diagnostic error (f) possible diagnostic error (g) relapse (h) outcome in doubt.[19] This means that while eight can be doubted and two discarded seventeen are solidly documented cures. Further findings looking back over the entire history of the phenomena the researchers suggest that about 1/3 of the cases involve cures that were not spontaneous but required days or weeks. The researchers find that there are significant mental factors present and an atmosphere conducive to healing but they don’t make any conclusion about the influence of psychosomatic cures and they don’t try to make such an excuse to “explain” it all. It might also be worth pointing out even though they can’t be studied there’s an “underside” of Lourdes cures of people who are healed in connection prayers involving Lourdes or use of the water away form the shrine who never report in but send information so that a plaque can be put up. This number has been increasing was about ninety-four in 2008. While they cant’ really be claimed as cures they can’t be studied they suggest the possibly of healing outside the domain of Lourdes.[20]





The conclusion of the authors:

Their conclusion is basically: “We don’t really know if God is working miracles at Lourdes or not, the situation is not clear enough to affirm or deny such a cliam. “ Yet they make the frank admission that the way people see it will be determined by their view on religion and belief. While that may seem like a refutation to some, it’s all we need to undermine the closed realm of discourse on the subject. This will be seen in the next chapter.


…the least that can be stated is that the exposures to Lourdes and its representations (Lourdes water, mental images…) in a context of prayer have induced an exceptional usually instantaneous, symptomatic, and at best physical cures of widely different diseases. Although what follows is regarded by some as a hackneyed concept, any and all scholars of Lourdes have come to agree with one of two equally acceptable—but seemingly conflicting and irreconcilable—points of view on the core issue, are the Lourdes cures a matter of  divine intervention or not? Faith is set against science…uncanny and wired, the cures are currently beyond our ken but still impressive, incredibly effective and awaiting scientific explanation. Creating a theoretical explanatory framework could be within reach of neurophysiologists in the next decade…We reached the same conclusion as Carrel some 80 to one hundred years ago “instead of being a simple place of miracles of interest only to the pious Lourdes presents a considerable scientific interest….although uncommon the miraculous cures are evidence of somatic and mental processes we do not know.”[21]


While the findings of Francis et al do not provide conclusive proof of miracles do not allow us state that miracles are scientifically proved, the also reject and disprove the mocking assertions of skeptics that Lourdes miracles are just laughable nonsense to be dismissed with UFO abductions and Bigfoot.
            There are those who will argue that unless the causes are all uniform and proven and pile up a huge number they can’t be miracles because surely if there was a loving God working miracles he would have to succeed every time and have to work them every time he’s asked. We can’t subject God’s will to numbers. We can’t assume we control the process or that God is obligated to heal every time. That’s we should take it case by case and not attaches numbers. Lourdes does represent “extraordinary proof” in the sense that this concept if meaningful in connection with Bayes’s theorem. That concept does not refer to bizarre way out things such as UFO abductions but to whatever stands out form the statistical norm; seventeen out of twenty-five is not bad.


[1] Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28  all the page numbers given are from pdf
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

on line copy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/

[2] ibid
[3] ibid
[4] ibid, abstract.
[5] Ibid, pdf page 8
[6] ibid
[7] ibid 9
[8] ibid 10
[9] ibid, 12
[10] ibid
[11] ibid
[12] ibid, 13
[13] ibid 21
[14] ibid 19
[15] ibid 20
[16] ibid they sight Catechism of the Catholic Chruch part 3 section 1 chapter 3 article 2, grace 2003.The Catholic believer may reject all ecclesiastical miracles as pious fables and he may reject modern miracles as imagination.
[17] Ibid 21
[18i] ibid 23 Mangiapan  was president of the medical bureau
[19] ibid 24
[20] ibid, 25-27
[21] ibid 27

Comments

Anonymous said…
Are there any examples of amputees getting their missing limb back?

We know people get over illnesses naturally, even cancer will occasionally just disappear, and we do not have to invoke miracles to explain it (it happens to good and bad, Christian and non-Christian alike). However, missing limbs never grow back, so that would make great evidence.

On the other hand, if there is no record of such miracles, it does make you wonder...

Pix
im-skeptical said…
This article is based entirely on one single paper, written by religious fanatics. If you visit that site, you will see some related papers. One is titled Seeing is believing? The form and substance of French medical debates over Lourdes. This is the abstract:

Recent works on Lourdes have tended to emphasize the positive personal, social, and spiritual aspects of a pilgrimage, while downplaying the role of religious politics in (over)determining discussions around the events taking place there over the course of the Third Republic. This paper seeks to reassert the extent to which the medical community remained divided, along religious lines, over the existence and nature of the cures taking place at Lourdes well into the twentieth century, while analyzing how Catholic physicians were able to create an aura of therapeutic credibility around the cures.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
This article is based entirely on one single paper, written by religious fanatics. If you visit that site, you will see some related papers. One is titled Seeing is believing? The form and substance of French medical debates over Lourdes. This is the abstract:

Recent works on Lourdes have tended to emphasize the positive personal, social, and spiritual aspects of a pilgrimage, while downplaying the role of religious politics in (over)determining discussions around the events taking place there over the course of the Third Republic. This paper seeks to reassert the extent to which the medical community remained divided, along religious lines, over the existence and nature of the cures taking place at Lourdes well into the twentieth century, while analyzing how Catholic physicians were able to create an aura of therapeutic credibility around the cures.

9/18/2017 12:15:00 PM Delete


that is not the same as saying those opponents have great explainations they do not,
they oppose miracles on ideological grounds they don't have explanation,
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
Joe, you will note that you can't provide a definitive explanation for something that is poorly documented. The "miracles" at Lourdes have dried up in recent decades. Why? Because of improved documentation, people in recent years have examined these cases more thoroughly than in the past. One thing that is certain: every single case of "miraculous" cure at Lourdes has a natural explanation. We just don't always have all the information to say what it is.
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Joe, you will note that you can't provide a definitive explanation for something that is poorly documented. The "miracles" at Lourdes have dried up in recent decades. Why?

I don't think you read my summary much less the original,its very clear it is well documented, and this Clarice covers the bad period, i;ts gotten much better since.



Because of improved documentation, people in recent years have examined these cases more thoroughly than in the past. One thing that is certain: every single case of "miraculous" cure at Lourdes has a natural explanation. We just don't always have all the information to say what it is.

that is a They only allow the cases to go to the theologians if they have no medical explanation,so they do not have one for any of the 66 miracles,. you are making a faith based ideological pronouncement,
im-skeptical said…
I don't think you read my summary much less the original,its very clear it is well documented, and this Clarice covers the bad period, i;ts gotten much better since.

- Find a real doctor (who's not befuddled by Christianity) who thinks there is adequate documentation of these cases. It's only Christians who have seen all the documentation they need to arrive at their preferred explanation: "It's a miracle!!!" Why don't you try to find some objective analysis of these cases, instead of just listening to people like Bernard Francois, who is an avid believer in miracles, and doesn't WANT to find any other explanation?


that is a They only allow the cases to go to the theologians if they have no medical explanation,so they do not have one for any of the 66 miracles,. you are making a faith based ideological pronouncement

- You got that wrong, Joe. THEY are making a faith based ideological pronouncement. I can see that, but you can't.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I don't think you read my summary much less the original,its very clear it is well documented, and this Clarice covers the bad period, i;ts gotten much better since.

- Find a real doctor (who's not befuddled by Christianity) who thinks there is adequate documentation of these cases.

you just disqualified yourself as a serious thinker, It is not hard to prove that Christians in science and medicine are the best, the head of the genome project is a christian. They use the finest doctors in Europe on the committee, you just proved you are not capable of dealing with the evidence rationally.


It's only Christians who have seen all the documentation they need to arrive at their preferred explanation: "It's a miracle!!!"

they have skeptics on the committee

Why don't you try to find some objective analysis of these cases, instead of just listening to people like Bernard Francois, who is an avid believer in miracles, and doesn't WANT to find any other explanation?

the Clarice you got through not reading is by secular thinkers who are not Christians.that disproves your whole bigoted stupidity.

you are a waste of band width





9/19/2017 12:36:00 PM Delete
im-skeptical said…
they have skeptics on the committee

- Name a skeptic who's on the committee. Hint: there aren't any.


the Clarice you got through not reading is by secular thinkers who are not Christians.that disproves your whole bigoted stupidity.

- Was THIS written by a secular thinker?
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
they have skeptics on the committee

- Name a skeptic who's on the committee. Hint: there aren't any.

do your own research,I know it's true I;'e deone the research,


the Clarice you got through not reading is by secular thinkers who are not Christians.that disproves your whole bigoted stupidity.

- Was THIS written by a secular thinker?

That is not the article I quoted,My article i sby peer reviewed academics,I don't know what that other is my French is wry rusty.

here is the Clarice i summarized


Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28 all the page numbers given are from pdf
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
im-skeptical said…
The medical bureau is part of the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes. Its members wear a badge with a cross and the slogan "I believe". They are the ones who refer cases to the International Committee of Lourdes, which is headed by the bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, and a guy named François-Bernard Michel, who happens to be identified as an author of the "scientific" parer you cited. He also happens to be the author of the book I pointed out, written in French, that is titled (in English translation) "At Lourdes, God Touches the Land".

The other parer I pointed out is an article that disputes the supposed agreement among medical historians that these cures are inexplicable. It seems that there is not agreement after all. And I would also point out that the church has a similar board for investigating miracles for the purpose of canonization of saints, and their supposed miracles are also very much in dispute.

Joe, you have to be a gullible fool to believe this religioius crap. This is promotional propaganda by the church, and nothing more.

Joe Hinman said…
You have already demonstrated that you can't evaluate evidence objectively. Let's take th guy' id first.
claim he is claim he is François-Bernard Michel bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes. But the name of my guy is Bernard François I don't find a version of it with mechanical in it.Bernardis his first name because most of his cites are "François, B." Your guy has those two names as one hyphenated name and then Michel.The medical historian who was professor has a strong publication history of scholarly articles,

HERE

so now give me a link so I can focus my own blue peppers on the info you claim proves he wrote my artocle.
im-skeptical said…
so now give me a link so I can focus my own blue peppers on the info you claim proves he wrote my artocle

Joe, if it's not the same guy, you still ignored everything I said. IT'S RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT. Medical historians DO NOT agree. The scientific community DOES NOT agree. The people on the medical bureau are NOT impartial. They are religious zealots.
Joe Hinman said…
I will answer all of it skep, it just takes some time, right now I[ts dinner,
Joe Hinman said…
Joe, if it's not the same guy, you still ignored everything I said. IT'S RELIGIOUS BULLSHIT. Medical historians DO NOT agree. The scientific community DOES NOT agree. The people on the medical bureau are NOT impartial. They are religious zealots.

You still don't understand the basis of knowledge. Science is your god rather than a too among other tools to gather knowledge,for you religion is a rival religion threatening your religion in Science worship.

You just demonstrated that you are not capable of evaluating evidence fairly, anything religious automatically has to be wrong regardless of the facts. nothing could ever count in favor of it,that means you are not a man of reason but a zealot preponderating on emotions not thinking,.
Joe Hinman said…
the guys with the patches that say "I believe" are not the guys that decide the miracles. The members of the medical committee are not the Bureau des Constatations Médicales within our lady of Lurdes. The guys who decide the miralces are the International Medical Committee of Lourdes (Comité Médical International de Lourdes).

you could have known this had you read the wiwki article more carefully.The one that came up when you thought Bernard François was François-Bernard Michel. Do you know how search engines work?

The actual committee consists of doctors and medical researchers and they use the finest in Europe.I talkedto a guy on the committee via email correspondence they are all very imminent. see a blog I wrote about the process and what is invoked including the rules.
Joe Hinman said…
A review I did on my blog, of a book by Jacalyn Duffin
Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing: Medical Miracles in the Modern World. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (November 21, 2008)

Link HERE

Duffin was a first rate medical researcher and medical historian. he was hired to do what she took to be a post mortum on a woman who supposedly died of cancer. She proved the woman had have cancer and what kind it was and so on,Then she was astonished to learn the woman is still alive. As it turns out the woman was a Lourdes Miracle.She had been used to screen the case, it was double blinded. Duffin was given permission to research in the Vatican archive and wrote a very interesting book about miracles she found there.

From this we learn that Lourdes uses top researchers in a double blind process to screen the claims before the committee sees them.
Joe Hinman said…
Answering Skepie from above:

- Find a real doctor (who's not befuddled by Christianity) who thinks there is adequate documentation of these cases.

I don't know if Duffin is a Christian or not but she was working double blinded so she didn't know she was researching a Lourdes claim,so her ideas about Christianity have nothing to do with it.That is SOP for doctors in the screening process.


It's only Christians who have seen all the documentation they need to arrive at their preferred explanation: "It's a miracle!!!" Why don't you try to find some objective analysis of these cases, instead of just listening to people like Bernard Francois, who is an avid believer in miracles, and doesn't WANT to find any other explanation?

It's apparent from the article not since he made the impassioned claim that sickness would one day solve the inigma of Lourdes,his admission that they can'texplaimnitgoescoiunter to his biases,


that is a They only allow the cases to go to the theologians if they have no medical explanation,so they do not have one for any of the 66 miracles,. you are making a faith based ideological pronouncement

No it's a factual claim. they only allow it to go if hey can't find a physical explanation,the people looking are working double blind and don't even know heir research pertains to miracles

- You got that wrong, Joe. THEY are making a faith based ideological pronouncement. I can see that, but you can't.

you asserted that Franciscans-Bernard Michele is Bernard Fracis and you made up bull shit about his belief in miracles which is obviously not true if you read his article, because you are bigoted. Christianity threatens your religion

9/19/2017 12:36:00 PM Delete

im-skeptical said…
You just demonstrated that you are not capable of evaluating evidence fairly, anything religious automatically has to be wrong regardless of the facts. nothing could ever count in favor of it,that means you are not a man of reason but a zealot preponderating on emotions not thinking,

- Don't project your own faults onto me. YOU have no idea what a real scientific investigation looks like. You believe any bullshit the church comes up with. You think the people on that medical board are impartial? What a joke. It's their job to find no medical explanations for these cases. All they do is filter out the more obvious cases of natural cures, referring cases that would best be called unexplained rather than inexplicable. They do not use the best scientific methods. That's why others scoff at them. See this.
im-skeptical said…
I don't know if Duffin is a Christian or not but she was working double blinded ...

- The case she examined was not an example of "double blind". If you don't know that a scientific term means, you shouldn't use it.


his admission that they can'texplaimnitgoescoiunter to his biases,

- That's absurd. His findings are 100% aligned with his religious biases. He is doing exactly what the church wants him to do: making findings to support the conclusion "science has no explanation, therefore God did it."


No it's a factual claim. they only allow it to go if hey can't find a physical explanation,the people looking are working double blind and don't even know heir research pertains to miracles

- As I said, you don't even know what that means. You don't know what you're talking about. Just parroting what you hear from a bunch of religious fanatics, and embellishing it with more jargon that sounds scientific to to people who don't understand it.


you asserted that Franciscans-Bernard Michele is Bernard Fracis and you made up bull shit about his belief in miracles which is obviously not true if you read his article, because you are bigoted. Christianity threatens your religion

- The author of that book is the president of the Lourdes Medical Board. He is very religious, and obviously biased, as is the entire board. I didn't make that up. the fact is that science is a huge threat to your superstitious beliefs. That's why you are constantly railing against "scientism".

But then you go looking for supporting material, skipping over thousands of papers that don't support your position, and come up with one that does, and you hypocritically claim that science is on your side, and not only that, but the whole community is in agreement about it. BULLSHIT!
im-skeptical said…
And one more thing, Joe. Duffin's investigation (which is not double-blind) found that the patient went into remission twice after receiving chemotherapy, and remained in remission the second time. She then concluded that there is no medical explanation for the cure. WHAT??? Being cured by standard medical practice translates to no explanation, so it must be a miracle? If I were you, I wouldn't seek her out for treatment.
Autumn Cote said…
Would it be OK if I cross-posted this article to WriterBeat.com? There is no fee, I'm simply trying to add more content diversity for our community and I liked what you wrote. I'll be sure to give you complete credit as the author. If "OK" please let me know via email.

Autumxn
AutumnCote@WriterBeat.com
Joe Hinman said…
Autumn Cote welcome! no problem.Glad you like it.
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
JoeLYou just demonstrated that you are not capable of evaluating evidence fairly, anything religious automatically has to be wrong regardless of the facts. nothing could ever count in favor of it,that means you are not a man of reason but a zealot preponderating on emotions not thinking,

Skep- Don't project your own faults onto me. YOU have no idea what a real scientific investigation looks like.

yes I do. I majored in sociology and I subsided history of science in PhD wok you did not go to graduate school I do't know you went to college. I am not intimidated by the authority figures of your religion,

You believe any bullshit the church comes up with.

then why am I a protestant? you can't think objectively you are not going by the facts you are hung up on your hated,

You think the people on that medical board are impartial? What a joke. It's their job to find no medical explanations for these cases.

how can their biases affect Tehran if they don't know they are searching forLourdes?

All they do is filter out the more obvious cases of natural cures, referring cases that would best be called unexplained rather than inexplicable. They do not use the best scientific methods. That's why others scoff at them. See this.

then why o they only 65 miracles?? why did they protest the pope loosening the rules?
Joe Hinman said…
show me a scientific explain for Charles Anne's lungs. Xrays prove one day ravaged by TB the next day clear as a bell,
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
I don't know if Duffin is a Christian or not but she was working double blinded ...

- The case she examined was not an example of "double blind". If you don't know that a scientific term means, you shouldn't use it.

yes it is. she did not know what she was studying and they did not know who was assineed the case (until after)/ that is what double blind means,


his admission that they can'texplaimnitgoescoiunter to his biases,

- That's absurd. His findings are 100% aligned with his religious biases. He is doing exactly what the church wants him to do: making findings to support the conclusion "science has no explanation, therefore God did it."

then why does he argue that there must be naturalistic causes and science will someday find them? you are still stupidly assuming that they must be a Christian because he doesn't fume hatred agaisnt God and deny Lourdes in knee jerk reaction like you.


Joe: No it's a factual claim. they only allow it to go if hey can't find a physical explanation,the people looking are working double blind and don't even know heir research pertains to miracles

Skep
- As I said, you don't even know what that means. You don't know what you're talking about. Just parroting what you hear from a bunch of religious fanatics, and embellishing it with more jargon that sounds scientific to to people who don't understand it.

I studied double blind methodology in a graduate level class as an undergrad at U Texas Arlington taught by the President of the southwestern sociological association,

"A double-blind study can be a useful research tool in psychology and other scientific areas. By keeping both the experimenters and the participants blind, bias is less likely to influence the results of the experiment. ... Research In Psychology: Methods and Design.Aug 7, 2017" https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-double-blind-study-2795103

Joeyou asserted that Franciscans-Bernard Michele is Bernard Fracis and you made up bull shit about his belief in miracles which is obviously not true if you read his article, because you are bigoted. Christianity threatens your religion

- The author of that book is the president of the Lourdes Medical Board. He is very religious, and obviously biased, as is the entire board. I didn't make that up. the fact is that science is a huge threat to your superstitious beliefs. That's why you are constantly railing against "scientism".

what book? you think he is Jawline Duifin> a woman Bishop? The Fracis article is a journal article from a peer reviewed academic journal,


But then you go looking for supporting material, skipping over thousands of papers that don't support your position, and come up with one that does, and you hypocritically claim that science is on your side, and not only that, but the whole community is in agreement about it. BULLSHIT!

you have no evidence supporting that assertiom, you have only ideological statements,show me any evidential support, show it! link and citation,and quote, and you don't hae thousand,only hand full f aritlcesimn journlsare about Lourdes,I know because I looked,

9/22/2017 08:20:00 AM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
m-skeptical said...
And one more thing, Joe. Duffin's investigation (which is not double-blind)

i must hear what you think that means


found that the patient went into remission twice after receiving chemotherapy, and remained in remission the second time. She then concluded that there is no medical explanation for the cure. WHAT??? Being cured by standard medical practice translates to no explanation, so it must be a miracle? If I were you, I wouldn't seek her out for treatment.

9/22/2017 08:33:00 AM Delete


that's the history of the woman not of Dufin's study,she didn't know the woman was alive so she didn't know she was in remission,.The rules preclude using anyone who could be cured by medicine.modern medicine does not cause remission.

show me what you read
im-skeptical said…
It's hard to keep a coherent conversation going when you split off this way and that, and then you can't keep the different topics straight in your own mind. For example, you refer to "she" in response to my statement about a male. You clearly don't even listen to what I say. You are much more focused on disputing it, no matter what it is (and that last phrase is literally true). You don't care what I am talking about, or whether it is actually correct, you just dispute it anyway.

Here's something for you to understand first. I studied more science before I got out of high school than you have in your life. My undergraduate work was in science. My graduate work was in science. Whenever you pretend to know things about science that you clearly don't, I know perfectly well that you talking out of your ass - usually blinded by your superstitions and ideological biases.

I'll give you one last example of your failure to address my criticisms:
that's the history of the woman not of Dufin's study,she didn't know the woman was alive so she didn't know she was in remission,.The rules preclude using anyone who could be cured by medicine.modern medicine does not cause remission.
I read Duffin's own account of the study. The fact that the patient was still alive had nothing to do with it. She was convinced that because the patient went into remission twice (which is not very common for that type of leukemia, but it does happen), there is no medical explanation. This despite the fact that the patient had received medical treatment, including chemotherapy. And you, being the credulous fool that you are, make the idiotic statement "modern medicine does not cause remission." Yes, it does. And if you would bother to read something other than the religious propaganda that you place so much trust in, you would know that.

Now it turns out that Duffin has written a couple of books on medical miracles. That where her money comes from. And you, being the credulous fool that you are, think this is an unbiased source of scientific information. BULLSHIT.
Joe Hinman said…
It's hard to keep a coherent conversation going when you split off this way and that, and then you can't keep the different topics straight in your own mind. For example, you refer to "she" in response to my statement about a male.

No you have slot at every turn so now you are knit pickiing,


You clearly don't even listen to what I say. You are much more focused on disputing it, no matter what it is (and that last phrase is literally true). You don't care what I am talking about, or whether it is actually correct, you just dispute it anyway.

not an argument, get specofoc

Here's something for you to understand first. I studied more science before I got out of high school than you have in your life. My undergraduate work was in science. My graduate work was in science. Whenever you pretend to know things about science that you clearly don't, I know perfectly well that you talking out of your ass - usually blinded by your superstitions and ideological biases.

try to get this though your stupid little head it's not about having the right amount of science in your brain you have to be right about the specific points, it's not a general contest about who knows more science. But this little tirade is telling because it shows how your ego is driving your arguments, but guess what? I know more philosophy than you.

I'll give you one last example of your failure to address my criticisms:


I/ve beatn you every issue moron, you don't even know how search engines work,

that's the history of the woman not of Dufin's study,she didn't know the woman was alive so she didn't know she was in remission,.The rules preclude using anyone who could be cured by medicine.modern medicine does not cause remission.


I read Duffin's own account of the study. The fact that the patient was still alive had nothing to do with it. She was convinced that because the patient went into remission twice (which is not very common for that type of leukemia, but it does happen), there is no medical explanation.

Not knowing she was alive has everything to do with it because it disprove that she was led astray by religion since she didn't even know it was about a healing, she does not say that the second session thing was the only reason she found it inexplicable,


This despite the fact that the patient had received medical treatment, including chemotherapy. And you, being the credulous fool that you are, make the idiotic statement "modern medicine does not cause remission." Yes, it does. And if you would bother to read something other than the religious propaganda that you place so much trust in, you would know that.

you are the genius who thought Francis was that other guy because you know how search engines work,

moron I am not an oncologist,unlike you I am capable of admitting can be wrong, weather or not remission can because by medicine is not the issue,she obviously was not in remission when Duffin studied the case, or she would haven own she was alive,

Now it turns out that Duffin has written a couple of books on medical miracles. That where her money comes from. And you, being the credulous fool that you are, think this is an unbiased source of scientific information. BULLSHIT.

you think Dawkins isn't making money off of his atheist lies, you have no knowledge that her books sold, But this proves the extent of your pathetic biased bigotry

9/23/2017 09:48:00 AM Delete

Popular posts from this blog

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

How Should I Be A Sceptic -- belief and reason

Bayes Theorem And Probability of God: No Dice!

Kierkegaard's Knights of Faith and the Account of Abraham

The Meaning of the Manger

The Origin of Life and the Fallacy of Composition

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?