I would like to correct the mistakes and false statements made in the post appended below. Goanet does not allow attachments. I do not want to upload the scanned paper in the public domain and provide a link to it for copyright reasons. I have emailed the paper to Ferdinando. My email has not bounced. If he does not want to receive private emails and attachments, it is his problem. I would be happy to send to it any other Goanetter privately.
As far as the paper is concerned, the claim below that it was removed by somebody is false. It is available in the archives of all good medical libraries. Like most papers cited in the medical databases prior to the late 1980s it is not available online. Also, like most papers it has not been published as an open access publication. So its public distribution is prohibited by copyright. To correct the other falsehoods below, let me restate briefly what I have said about this paper. 1. This paper is not a "confirmation" by "modern science" of any miracle. The claim of confirmation would be laughable to any professional scientist, or a court of law, for that matter, based on what is written in the paper. 2. The results described do not come even close to confirming unequivocally the claims that the material is human heart and blood, that it is fresh, that it is from a living person, that it is from the 8th or the 1st century, that it is from any historical or religious figure, and that it originated from inanimate matter. 3. The AB blood group claimed rules out the possibility that the body from which this material supposedly came, possessed only one set of 23 chromosomes derived solely from the mother. Please see my earlier post on it at: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2011-February/205418.html Regarding why such a flawed study would be published, the answer is that obscure publications like the one in which it was published do not have a rigorous peer-review process, and/or high standards. There are many such substandard papers published every day in non-peer-reviewed publications. That is why science requires that every important result be reproduced independently in multiple laboratories, and published in high quality peer-reviewed scientific journals, before it is accepted as scientifically valid. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 2/20/11, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão <drferdina...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > COMMENT : I precisely > wanted Santosh to publish this Linoli’s paper as I > didn’t want the discussion > on this forum without others in the Forum knowing its very > contents. It gives > ample scope to false arguments. But now our Mr. “Know It > All” wants us to > believe that he’s ignorant about how to upload a scanned > copy in cyberspace and give us a link. So > be it, at least Santosh admits he is ignorant about > something. Anyway, I will > not be getting Santosh’s mail as my mailbox is set up to > receive only mails > from IDs in my address book. The rest will either bounce > back or get > immediately deleted as spam. > > The original report was > published on 7th Sept. 1971 on Medline here: > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4950729 > > Now it is for the Forum > to decipher; why was it published in the first place if it > was false as claimed > by Santosh? Who removed the medical study reports, and why, > and with what > intentions? Published reports are never removed. If > erroneous, a review is > published with error corrected. > > Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão. >
