Friday, August 28, 2015

Call Me Back About Sheldrake When You Can Match The First Page Of His CV

1960-63 Major Open Scholar at Clare College, Cambridge. Read
Natural Sciences (Pt 1, Biochemistry, Botany, Chemistry and
Physiology; Pt 2, Biochemistry). Double First Class Honours B.A. 1963.
Awarded the University Botany Prize and the Clare College Greene Cup
for General Learning.
1963-4 Frank Knox Fellow in the Graduate School at Harvard
University. Studied philosophy and history of science.
1964-7 Research student in Dept of Biochemistry, University of
Cambridge. Ph.D. Thesis on "The Production of Hormones in Higher
1966 Cambridge University Sir Henry Strakosh Travelling
Fellow in Southern Africa.
1967 M.A., Cambridge, Ph.D. Cambridge
1967-74 Research Fellow and later Fellow of Clare College,
Cambridge, and Director of Studies in Biochemistry and Cell Biology.
1968-9 Royal Society Leverhulme Studentship at the University
of Malaya. Research on morphogenesis in tropical ferns, and on the
physiology of latex flow in rubber trees (in conjunction with the
Rubber Research Institute of Malaya).
1970-3 Royal Society Rosenheim Research Fellow. Research in
Department of Biochemistry at Cambridge on the production and polar
transport of the hormone auxin in higher plants, and on the control of
plant differentiation and development. Also worked on the nature of
ageing in plants and animals, and developed a new approach to the
questions of senescence and rejuvenation.

And that's only the first page, up till he was about 31.

Here is his publications list.  I know it's not as impressive as being a pseudonymous commentator at Eschaton and, I have every confidence, with other phony names on other blogs and web mags but we aren't all a gifted blog troll.

Perhaps your tag team buddy is just sore that he didn't stick with the "new approach to the question of senescence and rejuvenation".   I find reading about things I don't know about remarkably rejuvenating, it's how I found out about these topics.  So, why don't you tell me what was wrong with what Jessica Utts said in her 1991 paper I linked to the other day?

Update:  Address the science or admit your pseudo-skepticism is based on your complete ignorance of science and mathematics.  You can start with Utts paper and her responses to the commentators.  If you can't do that I'm really not interested in what you think you're thinking about it.


  1. Sparky, you have to be kidding. Sheldrake the Magnificent has 12 papers, including his pseudoscience. And you are impressed? Even when he was doing science, he published a grand total of 6 papers But you are absolutely correct that it is nowhere as impressive as this pseudonymous commentator. I have over 115 publications, more than 10 book chapters, 18 invited reviews, more than 5000 citations and a h factor of 39. I am by no means a star, but these are what constitute achievement in science. But you have consistently shown you know less than nothing about science. The fact that you are a groupie to a complete crackpot seals it.

  2. 12? You counted the headings of the categories he divided his list of publications in, idiot. You have to click on them to find the citations. Yeah, I really, really believe what you said on the basis of that idiotic statement. I know you'll be reluctant to identify yourself but I really won't believe your claims without you doing that. Let me guess, it's in the so-called, social sciences. In which case tell me what's wrong with Jessica Utts' work.