Human Parthenogenesis. The phantom article. Misinterpretations.


The Lancet_Parthenogenesis in Human Beings_skakos_v2

Christmas brought to me some “new” articles about one of the hot topics of the days: Parthenogenesis. After some reading and searching I was astounded to find out some sources claiming that parthenogenesis is not only possible for humans but that it has been possibly been observed too (1). (V: by the way, parthenogenesis in animals is extremely COMMON, to a point that it makes you wander: do the atheists which laugh at the birth of Christ believe that humans do not belong in the same category as the animals for which parthenogenesis phenomena are so common?)

After some deeper search, I found a number of interesting articles (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12), which all had the same central point of reference: The old “phantom” article “PARTHENOGENESIS IN HUMAN BEINGS”(by S. Balfour-Lynn, The Lancet, Volume 267, Issue 6931, pages 1071 – 1072, 30 June 1956) from the renowned scientific journal “The Lancet” (13).

This article cannot be found in the internet for free. So one has to rely on what other say about it and its content! The fact that I had to pay $40 (with taxes) to buy a 1956 article and some highly antiphatic/ contradictory reports on its conclusions piqued my curiosity. When I read what the book “The Mysteries of Human Reproduction” (by Raymond W. Bernard) (14) said, in contrast to what other sources said (for the SAME Lancet publication!) I was finally convinced: I had to buy the article to see its contents for myself!

In two sentences: The Lancet article states that parthenogenesis is almost certainly scientifically observed! All the articles claiming that the Lancet article states the opposite are simply lying. (and yes: The Lancet is RIDICULOUS to ask for $40 for a 1,5 pages article from 1956!)

In more than two sentences:

  1. A scientist analyzed 19 alleged cases of human parthenogenesis.
  2. The 18 of the 19 cases were rejected for various reasons.
  3. One case (Mrs. Alpha) passed all the tests, which included blood, saliva, taste and skin-grafting tests. The skin-grafting tests from mother to daughter and vice versa ended up in the almost simultaneous rejection of the transplants (in 4 weeks from the daughter and in 6 weeks from the mother). This result was “by accident” misinterpreted as a negative result, even though the Lancet article does not say such a thing. And actually it is logical for two identical persons to have the same reaction! (this actually increases the probability of the case being a true case of parthenogenesis!) Claims that the skin grafts from a “same” person “must” be accepted are simply not valid, since there are numerous cases of people who rejected skin transplants from their own skin. (15) Others claim (like here) that daughter and mother are different (and, thus, we did not have parthenogenesis), since the daughter rejected the transplant earlier than her mother. But again, this is speculation NOT contained in the Lancet article and easily debatable. Are we ready to denounce a case which passed ALL the tests because of a 2 weeks difference in ONE test which ALSO was (at the end) successful?
  4. The article concluded that “In such a case as this, rigorous proof is impossible, but it remains that all the evidence obtained from serological and special tests is consistent with what would be expected in a case of parthenogenesis” […] “this mother’s claim must not only be considered seriously, but it must also be admitted that we have been unable to disprove it”.

It is time for science to become more courageous so as to pursue more actively the analysis of ambiguous subjects. Hiding problems under the carpet is not good for anyone.

It is time science becomes Science again!

To all the atheists in the world: HAPPY CHRISTMAS!

Memories, illusions, arrogance…


Scientists claiming to be able to delete specific memories. [1] The important detail: the “deletion” was made by inhibiting the process of the formation of memories DAYS after the events that created the memories. How could that happen if that inhibitor only blocks the formation of memories? And how could the blocking of the creation of memories solve the problem of WHERE the memories are finally stored? How can we know NO other memory was affected? By some simple tests “do you remember this game”? And how can we know that the memory is deleted or if we just blocked its recovery?

The key point: “scientists are not yet sure why powerful methamphetamine-related memories are also so fragile”.

We are playing with importan things like baboons are playing with a typewriter.

Like inventors who just don’t know why their new toy works. Just scratching the surface… Will we have the openmindness required to understand the true discovery when we see it?

Not being too eager to draw conclusions will define the final “winner”…

Related article: Mind, Morphogenetic fields, Quantum physics…

Where is memory stored? NO, we do not know!


Once more, another article claiming we have solved the problem of where memory is stored. (1) Atheists/ materialists are so eager to tag this problem “solved” that they have no issues in simply lying openly.

But true science is not about who claims to have solved something.

True science is about ACTUALLY and ACTIVELY seeking the truth, while being humble in the process…

Multiple experiments have shown that memory is not even stored in the brain…

Read Mind,  Morphogenetic fields, Quantum physics…. Maybe also have a look at “I know the “involved” mechanism. (and other science jargon tricks)” post or the Philosophy  Wire: Brain, Memory & Plasticity against materialism. Or see here and here for all articles tagged with ‘memory’ in Harmonia Philosophica.

Being hasty does not provide answers. It DOES provide though with a good indication of what your intentions are…

PS. See John Lorber research on patients with loss in the celebral brain cortex to see why one experiment cannot tell the truth (NDE and other consciousness without brain references). Check out for “Hasty Science” as well…

All of our life, a single measurement…


New research from the University of Adelaide shows that weight gain and increased head size in the first month of a baby’s life is linked to a higher IQ at early school age. [1]

Do you remember that funny Lucky Luke comic (Lucky Luke Collines Noirs) with some funny looking anthropologists who wanted to study the Indians? These funny guys had a measure tape with them and contantly measured the skull dimensions of the “primitive” people. Now WE are the primitive people. We measure dimensions and derive our future and our behaviour from them. We are not like computers. We ARE computers! We CHOOSE TO BE machines!

IQ, skull dimensions, brain volume…

All of our life in a single measurement…

> Help translate the Harmonia Philosophica book in 6 new languages and get valuable perks in return! Support the Indiegogo project now!

How educated are your… genes?!?


Genetic factors may exert a tiny influence on how much schooling a person ends up with, a new study suggests. [1] Sure. We have “discovered” all other stupid things that we can based on genes, why not this too? Science dogmatism has beginning to look more and more dangerous. And we though of Hitler as dangerous for believing that height and eye colour was based on genes…