Holy pseudoscience, Batman!
Homeopathy websites (too many to list; I found the material for this post here) are all gleefully abuzz
today** with the following factoid – New Research From Aerospace Institute of the University of Stuttgart Scientifically Proves Water Memory and Homeopathy.
A simple experiment by researchers and professors at the prestigious Aerospace Institute of the University of Stuttgart in Germany is confirming Dr. Jacques Benveniste’s 1988 assertion that water has an imprint of energies to which it has been exposed. In spite of Jacques Benveniste’s experiment to show that homeopathy works being replicated many many times at various research labs and universities around the world, skeptics have continued to attempt to debunk it albeit unsuccessfully… This new experiment and support from professors here offer another intriguing view and explanation of how homeopathy works since it proves water has a “memory”.
Naturally interested, I rushed to find a source for this awesome news about a phenomenon that could potentially change all our basic understanding of the physico-chemical nature of water and give a big fillip to Benveniste’s “water memory” theory that has been discredited several times over. I looked and looked, I really did. Did I find a journal article, a research paper, a scientific citation?
NO. All I found was a YouTube video.
So what did the video talk about? What simple experiment led the homeopathy world to such a momentous conclusion?
The experiment is simple enough. The voice-over says that the researchers at “Aerospace Institute at the University of Stuttgart” have found a simple way to make the structure of water visible.
(We shall not get into a quibble over the fact that University of Stuttgart (Universität Stuttgart) has no single “Aerospace Institute”; the faculty of Aerospace Engineering and Geodesy has three separate institutes with ‘Aerospace’ in their names. But as long as we are talking about fact-free assertions, it’s fine.)
[Update dated December 11, 2012: A reader pointed this out: The correct name of the institute is The Institute for Static and Dynamics for aerospace constructions of the University of Stuttgart. Here is a website of the project: http://www.weltimtropfen.de; the site is in German (YAY for Google Translate!). Unfortunately, the website has no pertinent information about the experiments and methodologies. There are some nice photos of water droplets, but mere appearance of some photos is not evidence. That is not how science works.]
The video shows right at the beginning (around 0:14) water being drawn into a syringe and droplets being placed on a glass slide. The voice-over goes on to say that each drop has a face of its own, unmistakable and unique. According to their observation, the water must remember the student who performed the experiment, because four droplets put by the same student looked identical, and there are visible differences between droplets put by different students.
My critical antennae were screaming.
- We were not told how these images were taken: camera? Light microscope? EM? Could the different observations be image artefacts? Of note in this regard, scienceblogger Orac had a very interesting post on how heavy metal contaminants were mistaken for non-existent structures called nanocrystalloids by a group of pro-homeopathy scientists intents on proving the existence of “water memory”.
- We don’t know if the images were taken simultaneously or differently. For example, was the same slide used for 16 droplets shown on screen? If the slides were different, how were the variables on slide surface (grease/grime/effect of cleaning solution et cetera) controlled for?
- Since the water was pushed out through the needle, how was the volume of the droplet controlled for? It is not unexpected that different students would push the plunger with slightly different force and end up with different volumes on the slide.
- Did each student put the droplets simultaneously or was there a time gap between each set? How was the effect of this time gap controlled for, particularly since the main thesis of the experiment is based on the different appearance of water drops made by different students? The easiest control would have been to get a student to put water drops at two different times, after taking water from the same source.
The person shown in the video demonstrating the observations did not of course get into any such vexatious question. The voice-over moved on to a different experiment, in which different flowers put in the water gave rise to different pictures of the droplet, thereby concluding that the water remembered the flowers.
Again, there was no mention of
- whether the surfaces of the flower parts were clean or similarly cleaned or not,
- whether the substances known to be in flowers (such as aromatic oils, alkaloids et cetera) had any effect, or even whether these parameters matched between the two different flowers put in,
- whether these experiments were adequately controlled for.
Of course not. Silly me. But the next assertion was even more stupendous – that the Rhine carries all the information from the stuff dropping into it, and the Dutch, located at the mouth of the Rhine, drink all that information. Hoozzah! The Dutch have their very own information superhighway in their gut.
Not having been fortunate enough to visit Germany or the Netherlands, I don’t know about the Rhine. But I know about many major rivers in India, even some of the great lakes in the US. I guess no one ever takes a dip in the Rhine? Across Germany, Austria, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, France, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium, there is not a single place where industrial effluents or human/animal excreta find their way into the Rhine or any of its tributaries? Does the Rhine remember all that information and pass it to the European gut? Gasp! – Is this why there is this preponderance of quackery in certain parts of Europe? The memories of all those nasty stuff in Rhine water must be doing something?
Critical thinking and rational experimentation is not, and has not been, a strong suit of the Complimentary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) practitioners. They continue to believe in their particular brand of magical remedies; however, they also crave the legitimacy that science is considered to provide – hence, their relentless struggle to appropriate science-y concepts to demonstrate the efficacy of CAM modalities, failing which there is always Special Pleading, Argument from Authority, Argument from Popularity and various other assorted logical fallacies at their disposal, as well as anecdata, a.k.a. testimonials.
The Editor of the EBM-First website, who goes by Blue_Wode on Twitter, kindly pointed me towards an illuminating article by Prof. Edzard Ernst about how “negative scientific evidence on homeopathy was covered up in Germany in the 1940s” (See page 2). This amply illustrates why rationalists and skeptics within the scientific community must keep up the good work of bringing reason and sanity to counter the lies and misinformation spread by the peddlers of pseudoscience.
**Update in postscript: I was wrong about this being in the news today. I found some blogpost dating back to April 2011 where this was mentioned, along with the vid.
Seems a bit Poe-ish. It could hardly be improved as a parody… could it?
Im curious if anyone has seen the experiment Luc Montagnier has done with a DNA Sequence Reconstituted from Water Memory?
• Imprinting DNA on water molecules
• Digitally recording the information
• Emailing the wave file to Italian lab
• Bombarding Sterile H2O with the wave file
• Reconstituting the “original DNA” strand from loose base pairs suspended in the “wave treated” H2O
Is this possible or is there an alternative explanation his results?
your story fails here :-> “Imprinting DNA on water molecules” .. DNA = many molecules, water: 1.. it fails to explian how you want to “imprint” information on an ever changing buziing heap of molecules that change their atoms with each other plenty of times per millisecond.. ? You CAN imprint information on water molecules: if you freeze them.. as ice.. if not you will have “weissche bezirke” at max.. no real information..
Hehe! I wish it were so, Lee. This is what Wikipedia has to say about the channel that produced this vid, Oasis HD.
They look genuine, but I can’t fathom why they would undertake to broadcast this exercise in pseudoscience. However, I was wrong about this being in the news today. I found some blogpost dating back to April 2011 where this was mentioned, along with the vid.
What exactly, are YOUR scientific credentials, Mr. Datta? Perhaps the honorific “Doctor” or “Phd” cannot presage your name, because you have not earned them? I have a phd in hard knocks, and a doctor-it in common sense. What do you have? According to the Book of Common Knowledge, “Those who cannot perform, must teach, and those who cannot even teach, must pose as experts by tearing down the ideas of much more talented men and women.” Which of those are you?
Tony, you are rather amusing. Thank you for a good laugh! I just finished reading your impassioned comments in the comments section. I am curious to know – when did you become such a passionate aficionado of homeopathy? It would be interesting to understand your thought process. Do you, perhaps, have a personal story?
You did not answer his question and only came back with basic ad hominem attack. Which kind of fits into your Strawman argument in the 2nd last paragraph of your blurb.
Thorb, sunshine, please open a dictionary and/or do a Google-search to look up the exact meanings of “ad hominem”, “strawman argument”, and “blurb”. You use words; you are unaware that those words don’t mean what you think they mean.
You seem to think that because the information about the methodology of the experiment isn’t placed in a Youtube video, that means it doesn’t exist. Of course there isn’t any information about method in a Youtube video. It’s a Youtube video! If I watch a news report about a chemical spill clean up and they don’t mention their method, am I to think that they never cleaned it up? That lack of information is irrelevant to the credibility of the source in this case.
You mention that homeopathy has been discredited time and time again – which it has. It has also been proven to work time and time again. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of papers, all demonstrating that there is an effect worth researching. Here is one of them.
You ask if nobody ever bathes in the Rhine or pollutes it. The fellow in the video never claimed that the river was pure and untouched – he was just entertaining a fascinating idea – something you might like to try yourself some time.
I don’t know if the water can really develop crystals like they show in the video, however I don’t think you do either. It seems that you start with a conclusion (homeopathy, water shapes, anything you think sounds odd) must be false, and then you work backwards. That is not the scientific method. That is an opinion piece disguised as science. And it is every bit as insidious as the pseudoscience you’re attempting to debunk.
That’s absolutely fair enough – similarly I’ve been frustrated at the fact that the gentleman’s name is not mentioned for example, making it difficult to find the paper itself, assuming it exists.
Although I wouldn’t say that the “lack of information is irrelevant to the credibility of the source”, I do concede that there is only so much one can include in a short youtube video. However, I haven’t been able to find either a longer video (this is presumably a short exerpt) or a link to the research paper.
Could you help us out on this one?
(Or maybe it is just an excellent parody.)
You seem to have missed the point of the post entirely. The post is about homeopathy websites touting a YouTube video as ‘evidence’ for an unsupported and implausible proposition. Do you get it now?
Ah. As “evidence”, you present the HTA report. That ‘neutral’ Swiss homeopathy report, written by ardent supporters of homeopathy and other assorted CAM modalities; that report which has been taken apart piece by piece, examined and discarded by the blogger Zeno. It is quite telling, really; it speaks a lot to your motivation and your understanding and appreciation of science.
Next time, try reading for comprehension, please?
The post title ‘ “Water memory” – a myth that wouldn’t die’ does seem to be more than about homeopathy websites, but actually questioning the science of the video without actually finding out what their methods were.
I’ve got no interest in homeopathy, I’m just interested in how you can prove what is claimed by the insitute is a myth purely by watching the video.
Your use of “purely” is incorrect. That Water Memory is a myth and a scientifically untenable hypothesis has been shown many time over, prior to the production of this video. Perhaps you’d like to review all that – since you are interested?
It appears you are saying that because something was unproven in the past, then any new evidence therefore must also be unable to prove it, without you having to check whether the evidence is sound or not.
‘New Evidence’? Show me. And not in form of a bunch of photographs, but in a format that is acceptable generally in the realms of science.
Benveniste’s research has been published in a mainstream science journal (Nature). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1387805/ The Editor in chief at that time (Maddox in 1988 I believe) spawned a scientific counter investigation, to be carried out by 3 non-scientists (including a “professional magician” !!!). I wish I would remember where I found that paper. It was laughable and can by no means be taken as a serious refutation of Benveniste’s research.
“I looked and looked, I really did”. And as surprising as this may seem, I did find a journal article, a research paper, a scientific citation. Easily and many. And in highly respected science journals.
You are citing a 1988(!) paper, Axel. You do realize that the earth has gone many turns around the sun since then, don’t you? Benveniste’s assertions have been challenged and disproven many times over since then. This paper that you cite has been critiqued by many others, but perhaps none so in depth as Maddox et al. in Nature (vol. 334, 28th July 1988). The points presented still remain. The so-called “Water Memory” of Benveniste, an extraordinary claim, still needs extraordinary evidence to support it. So, as of now, I see that you have nothing other than ‘argument from authority’. Better luck next time?
I love the Maddox et al. investigation of Benveniste – it is a classic read, and it is sad that it isn’t more easily accessible online. My favourite story from it can be found at the end of this old post, which also talks a bit about Beveniste, and the latter’s failure to appreciate both that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’, and that you should beware, as Richard Feynman would say, that you yourself are the easiest person to fool.
You are right, though, Kausik, that homeopathy / water memory has the status of a ‘myth that wouldn’t / won’t die’. It always appears extraordinary, until one remembers that it is a matter of faith – and as the modern world sadly shows us all too frequently, faith is not bothered abut rational explanations, or conversely the absence of them.
NOTE: Comment edited to correct an HTML code typo as indicated by Dr. Elliott.
Lol, this “scientist” just sources Wikipedia.
In the same spirit…
If you need to defend every little jab directed toward you, maybe you should try a more professional approach (or simply ignore the remark). “Better luck next time” (Datta, 2012).
I like that. Perhaps I could make up some pithy quotes, too, to go along with it… Hmmm.
I was thinking of one other variable for the water droplet/student experiments.
This is the variable of vibration.
If the students were each in a different area of the room when the water droplets were formed and I’m guessing evaporated, you can not help the small differences in vibration on the work surfaces.
The correct name of the institute is The Institute for Static and Dynamics for aerospace constructions of the University of Stuttgart. Here is a website of the project:
Thank you for the link to the project website. However, it has no pertinent information about the experiments and methodologies. Mere appearance of some photos is, sadly, not evidence. That is not how science works.
I don´t claim to provide evidence 🙂 .. You wrote you didn´t find anything but the video, so there you go. I found it after two minutes. It is obviously a real research team on a real and serious university. I merely corrected all your claims on which you based the whole article.
BTW on the promo website It says also: …After having published various research papers on the subject, a book, namely “The World in a Drop”, was brought to the public.
I assume you didn´t read the mentioned paper or the book.. though you are quick to draw conclusions weather this is a real phenomenon.. I think this is not critical thinking or skepticism or science, but rather a closed mind. Correct me if I´m wrong
Yes. I hope you also noticed that the said website is curiously devoid of any reference to any article on this published in a peer reviewed journal. Do you have a/any link to the “…published various research papers on the subject”?
What there is, on the other hand, is the very transparent attempt to sell the book which costs 39 Euros. Color me unimpressed.
Yes I have noticed that there are no links to peer reviewed publications, which I find disappointing.
My point is, that you seem to have made up your mind, based on lack of your ability to find anything more than the video. This doesn´t seem reasonable to me, although it is understandable given the nature of the subject.
The project website has an english version (upper right corner).
If you are really interested, you can contact them. This is what it says in the footnote:
You are kindly invited to give us your comments on the interpretation of the pictures and to communicate with us by firstname.lastname@example.org
I did contact them and asked for information about where to find the paper. I will gladly let you know if I should find out more. Take care!
What I found very interesting, and it was not a subject of discussion on this article, is the striking difference between those drop of water laid by different people. They do not have an explanation for that, so the video is not a probe that homeopathy works! What they probe is that each drop has an unique shape!
How about you look at Luc Montagnier’s work, its reproducible fact. Instead of criticizing first why don’t you check the published papers first, all your criticisms would be answered in the published works. then after that remain sceptical and prove or disprove the theories with your own experimentation.
Graham, I guess you’re a bit late to the party, but…
Been there, done that. Many, many times. For a good summary and some background, check this 2010 Scienceblogs post by Orac. It’s actually sad; when a scientist of Luc Montagnier’s caliber deserts the scientific method and descends into pseudoscience, it is sad day for science and humanity.
Evidence can be found in Perera, A., Mazighi, R., Kežić, B.,Fluctuations and micro-heterogeneity in aqueous mixtures, J. Chem. Phys. 136 (2012) p174516.vvvsd
Evidence of what, exactly? Would you mind clarifying a bit?
Kausik reminds me of those paid shills put there to steer people away from different kinds of information.That last article is absolutely silly. Nobel disease….how laughable. There are many early pioneers of “science” who came up with some sound stuff, and then some further theories that in the end get utterly disproved. But this is how science works anyways, and some of the beliefs that you hold dear to your own mind will also get disproved someday. The greeks are a prime example of the early days when their final conclusions were wrong. Hell even some of the other greats like Newton did not understand it all and also had some peculiar interests.
Listen, that doesn’t mean that water has memory or that homeopathy works (and it does, because I have actually tried it and then went to a western medical doctor to see and the exact same things had been diagnosed when tests came up)- but discrediting people and theories to satisfy your own silly bias that you so vehemently display to the extreme that you is silly. Let people explore theories, and find BETTER answers and solutions if they find the subject matter interesting.
Your holy grail of skepticism is exactly why there are some bottlenecks that we haven’t overcome in the mainstream field of science but in the private sector is far better understood (meaning military applications) It’s for the pandering of your own ego and delusions of superiority to people who actually dared to think outside the box and do something new instead of sitting there in your chair and criticizing others, and others intelligence who question your own (the commentators are a good example of this).
I have enjoyed reading the exchanges on this topic here. I found a pseudo “book” on water online at http://www.penergeticaustralia.com.au/downloads/Penergetic-The-Water-Book.pdf and, around pp. 23-25 the author describes an artist’s technique for obtaining the photos of these water drops that seems to be what the German researchers are using: 20x-100x magnification and photographing the drops as they dry on the microscope slide. On the German website (http://www.weltimtropfen.de/forschung_hintergrund_english.html ) they disclose they are looking at water drops with a dark field microscope. These require intense illumination that is likely producing heat and evaporating the drops. As the droplets get thin, one would expect any trace contaminants in the water to become more concentrated and form patterns that refract the light differently, hence causing patterns to form – presumably unique.
The YouTube video asserts that when the same bottle of water is passed around to different people who then use a syringe to personally withdraw the water and place drops on a slide for examination, each person’s set of droplets are similar and unique to that person but distinctly DIFFERENT from those of another person. First question: are they using the identical same dropper or is each person getting a new disposable dropper? Second question: is the dropper “primed” with the water several times (draw and discard the water at least 3 times) before taking the sample that is to be used on the microscope slide? Third question: how close does the individual get to the slide as they dispense the water from the droppers onto the slides? What I’m getting at here is: are they breathing on the water droplets?
All of these factors could introduce contaminants that would make a set of drops unique to the person, but different from those of another person. The contaminants would not make a difference in the image of the droplet until they get very concentrated when the drop is nearly evaporated from the surface. At that point we note that the EDGES of the droplets are no longer round and smooth but have become irregular, which is what we see in many of the droplet photos.
I am hoping to try this at my university to see if there is anything to it – just need to find the time to do it and locate a dark field microscope to borrow! In short, if my hypothesis is correct, then if one uses the SAME identical pipette or dropper each time and has properly primed the pipette or dropper, and if the person doing the work wears a face mask, clean lab coat and gloves, then all the droplets as they evaporate, including those prepared by different persons, will look the same. Ah, and don’t forget that the microscope slides themselves must be identically cleaned and prepared – best to have three or more different people put their droplets on the SAME glass slide that has been carefully cleaned – usually with acetone to remove oils and then methanol to remove the film left behind by the acetone. One also needs to use lint-free tissue to dry it and use a clean air jet if any lint pieces stick or remain on the glass slide.
Getting good and meaningful data is tricky business. I’ve seen all too many false and unsubstantiated conclusions drawn in the field of water research. I have also seen compelling evidence to suggest there’s more going on with water than we presently understand. Identifying any viable or underlying mechanism for the compelling results remains elusive scientifically, which is why I am presently trying to learn more about what these German researchers have done. My science literature searches have turned up nothing, but relevant articles may have published in German or other obscure European journals that are not in the extended university database. I’ll let you all know what I find.
As promised, I am writing to report that I was unable to reproduce images like those reported by the German scientist when using water drops on glass microscope slides under a dark field microscope. Whether sloppy or meticulous with the protocol, the all of the different water types exhibit alternating dark and white light interference bands while the droplet has some thickness. Upon evaporating, there is a thin residue ring, even for a reverse osmosis filtered water sample – it is a ghost-like gray and wispy residue. If I add trace minerals to tap water, by contrast, there is a strong droplet residue with complex crystal structures that form and some coloration, but still, nothing like what I have seen presented by the Germans.
Some of their images look like they could be color-enhanced residue films, but many of the German scientists’ images show structure within the water droplet that I could not achieve, no matter how I played with the focus – all I saw were these alternating black and white interference rings that correlate with the interference pattern of the light as a function of the droplet thickness and shape.
So, folks, I’m stumped. I gave it my best shot here and I don’t know what else to try. I have not purchased “The World in a Drop” book and am inclined not to because I don’t know if they will reveal their technique and protocol there. Whenever folks hide their protocols, I find them suspect for monkey-business. But it could be some proprietary discovery.
The thought occurred to me that they may be using a unique substrate material, OR that they are also using crossed polarizers in conjunction with the darkfield microscope – though I don’t know how the latter would work since the field of view is already quite dim and bringing in polarizers would cut down the light even more.
The droplets do evaporate relatively quickly. You can watch the edges recede in real time and some interesting patterns take place in real time at that interface, but nothing like what they are showing in the video that was posted.
I’m open to suggestions here, folks. I used sterile syringes with metal needle tips, both unprimed used as-is from the packaging and primed with the waters. I tried two different waters: one reverse osmosis filtered water, and one tap water into which I had added some trace minerals. This way I tested extremes. To reiterate: all my drops looked the same (black and white interference rings) while thick and then there were more or less identical and repeatable residue rings that correlated with the source of the water (R.O. or tap with minerals). The glass slide was new, cleaned with acetone and wiped dry with a lint free tissue and then blasted with a dust remover before I put water droplets on the surface. I should have also used methanol after the acetone to remove the film left by acetone, but this was a ballpark test and I honestly don’t think methanol would have made that big a difference in these results.
I am open to suggestions if anything more occurs to any one of you.
DocT, I am much impressed by your industriousness and pertinacity in attempting to figure out how the German group arrived at their results. But if I may ask, to what end are you undertaking this exercise? Is your aim (a) an independent verification of the claims of the German group, or (b) an attempt to provide a scientific bulwark to eventually prove that the principle of Homeopathy is not rooted in pre-scientific superstition, and that it, indeed, works? If it is ‘a’, I’d personally find it pointless, but should you wish to indulge your curiosity, you should be able to write to the German group asking for their exact protocol (without having to purchase the book). At least, this is how it works in Science. Additionally, they should be able to offer you valuable tips to understand your observations of the absence of any effect.
If, on the other hand, it is ‘b’, I’d simply wish you good luck. 😀
Have you gone over the REG experiments done by Schmidt? I’m curious as to whether or not they stand up scientifically, if they do it would suggest that human intention can affect the time of decay of strontium 90, its half life is 28.8 years according to Wikipedia. If its true perhaps a collective intent to reduce the decay of Chernobyl?
There is a link here with references to the specific experiment: http://www.weltimtropfen.de/forschung_individuen.html
I agree that I’m curious why this experiment has not been further tested.
I am a scientist and generally find claims such as the one in the video not true. But on this particular one, while I cant say it is true, I wouldn’t right away discredit it either.
Please look at Dr. Rustum Roys work on “Structure of water”. His scientific work showed beyond doubt that water has structure. He has articles published on the structural changes in water which depends on what it is mixed with (even at ppm concentrations of some metals etc) or exposed to (weak polarized fields etc). He also alludes to a possibility where weak electric and magnetic fields from humans might affect the structure (if true, this would imply human intent changing the structure). There was some study (not by Dr. Roy) on human intent and water structure which seemed inconclusive.
All I can say is we are still learning about water and there is a possibility the claims in the video could be true.
Pardon me, Kishore, but your comment – when parsed correctly – looks like: “I am scientist [blah] [blah] [blah] [blah] [blah] [blah] Trust me on whatever I am saying.” In other words, an Argument from Authority. Name-checking Rustum Roy also attests to that. If you are indeed a scientist, I find your unquestioning acceptance of Rustum Roy’s theories about water structure… troubling, to say the least. For a more detailed discussion of Rustum Roy’s ultimately futile efforts to link his materials science observations to homeopathy, read this informative and analytical post by Dr. Steven Novella. Rustum Roy used to be a respected Materials Scientist, but strangely has switched to pontificating on his ill-evidenced speculations and asking people to take him seriously – much like his famous comrades-in-woo.
Here are two brief explanations by Dr. Rustum Roy in his research
Evidence by YouTube? And you called yourself a ‘scientist’?
It certainly looks like if one wishes to check the methodology for this claim one is invited to buy the book. I draw no conclusions from that except to venture that the authors are not doing themselves or the Scientific method any favours engaging in such commercial sophistry.
I am interested in frequencies and their effects on well being so of course the immediate thought on seeing the short clip embedded in a much longer video led me to look for the authors and the method by which they came up with these claims.
I do have an open mind informed by both Skeptisism and Stoicism.
Still, it will sometimes strike a scientific man that the philosophers have been less intent on finding out what the facts are, than on inquiring what belief is most in harmony with their system.
Charles Sanders Peirce (1839-1914), U.S. philosopher, logician. Originally published in Popular Science Monthly (1878). Collected Papers, vol. 5, para. 406, Harvard University Press (1934).
How is it that someone would believe a story with out all the details of how the so claimed facts are gathered and studied? If he had called it The theory of water memory, he might not have to prove as much and those who want to believe it is true can argue that they can reproduce the experiment and it is within the possibilities of todays science that humans, and other forms of life, emit a readable frequency of energy. Like sound produces readable frequencies of energy that are visibly different within short ranges. Maybe life does the same. Some of the visible patterns produced by sound are very distorted and un recognizable while others are a complex interagency of symmetrical patterns. If you understand music you know that notes can harmonize, be in phase. When they are in phase they will sustain longer than when out of phase. Sound energy it is can be viewed with a simple toneoscope. The interference patterns, both in and out of phase, are similar to the water patterns described in the Water has memory video. Isn’t it possible that the energy holding the atoms of water together can be in or out of phase with the energy it come into the vicinity of? And if this was to happen could it be visible somehow like sound patterns are visible? Maybe if you flash froze the water immediately after the introduction of an energy source. Don’t we already know that an atom is 10 billion energy to one it’s mass. The real question isn’t how could someone believe that water has memory it is how could someone so readily dismiss the possibility. Because if it is true it’s a new way to measure the energy of a atom. What could you learn and how far could you expand your understanding of the universe just from this one starting point?
Whoa. You used a lot of words there, James, but none of those addresses one fundamental aspect: conjectures, hypotheses, ideas ain’t empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, gathered meticulously and analyzed critically, the concept of “water memory” is just wishful thinking – which may appropriate for woo-woo, but is by no means science.
Thanks, you are very kind. I think a lot faster than I write so everything gets out of place and cut off. Plus the fact that I am not very good at writing complies the distortion. I am surprised you even read what I wrote. If you like, when you can get passed my English and focus what it is I am talking about then we can talk. Read it again. Maybe I’ll clen it up and a second post will help you out.
BTW I’m not disputing your observation that he didn’t disclose every detail of how he came to these conclusions. I’m replying to your total dismissal of the possibility. I am also assuming that: you believe he is trying to prove the existence of a God. Which is the reason you wrote off the possibility before even considering that the frequency of energy can be matched. And when it is matched it can produce an inelegant pattern. I believe people can, ever so slightly, change the frequency of their own energy by changing their state of mind, their mood or continence.
Again, James, what you or I believe matters not a whit to science. The only way you’d sway a serious scientist is by providing or pointing to empirical evidence in support of your conjectures. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavors.
Thank you again, If I am clear on your view. that we know of, this claim hasn’t been proven. I’ll except that, you know the process to become a fact. My point is, I have theorized could it be true. From what I understand about the atomic structure of things I believe it may be possible. So I say to the claimer show me your proof. He said $19.95 but if you call within the next ten minutes …… LOL I really don’t know what or if he is selling.
I’m not a scientist so I ask you why can’t this be possible. Because you have no proof it has happen does not mean it can’t. You must have another reason, please share it with me so that I might understand something new.
PS It seems there needs to proof to dismiss a claim. Wikipedia: Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of an empirical claim. In the empiricist view, one can only claim to have knowledge when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered to be evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions. The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence.
My age is 40, my experiences so far in life about water memory have been:
1. as a child when I was sick my grandmother used to pray taking a small bowl of water and on completing her prayers give it to me to drink, and I always recovered from that illness faster .. at all times prescribed allopathic medicines were taken by me, my recollection though is that drinking that prayer water always made me feel that it was the catalyst in my faster alleviation from illness.
2. today I have a child who is 6 years of age and when I give her water after praying I have experienced that she recovers from the small bouts of illnesses at times not needing prescribed medications. I can try to remember and be more informative of such incidents if asked..,
I understand prayer as a strong focused intent so it could be a prayer to a believed god or just a focused intent per se.
please allow me to write here what i understand so far about water and then my proposition:
water is a conductor of electricity and also sound, and it does reflect light,
when a stone is thrown in a pond of water it creates the ripples which in time subside, to have continuous ripples continuous external action is necessary.
there are two parts here the act of affecting water being the first & the second act is being able to read the effect. an instance where a person throws a stone in a pond of water and goes away.., and a second person comes along and sees no one buy just the fading ripples , the second person will naturally infer that some earlier person must have thrown a stone in the pond to cause the ripples and since the ripples have not faded completely the throwing of the stone must have happened not much before.
the next questions that come to my mind are: 1. can the second person read, feel, or understand the thoughts imprinted or left behind by the first person because of his earlier presence at the water pond ( just as the stone causes ripples which eventually fade away the presence of any entity will have some effect be it a reflection of that entity in water or if it is electricity some charge but when that whatever entity ceases to be present its effects would also wear off in time depending on what that entity was) & 2. can the second person be affected by these changes voluntarily or involuntarily
in trying to answer these questions to myself I reason:
water can be frozen into different shapes and build into ice structures..
but can it be affected with thoughts or images in such a way that it carries that information as memory for some time or more time or forever? are there such examples in research available? it seems to me that the focus then comes to the reading equipment, if the data was there how to read it? if an image was shown to water by one person and after removing this person the second person was asked to read from that water the image of the first person, by touching the water or smelling the water or drinking the water? would it be possible? an important variable in such a test would be the time lapse i think? the first person showing an image to water and the second person trying to capture that image but in doing so the second person would first also do his/her effect to water! I will do this experiment and report back here about it and posit in on youtube ..,
as i understand now in the practical sense i think it is a difficult proposition to prove that what kinds of affects can be done to water such that after a time lapse subsequent entities can infer the earlier effects by seeing it , touching it smelling it or drinking it or studying it under a currently available microscope.
if that were the case water could operate as the cheapest data storage device! just show a drop of water a movie of 40GB and seal this water in an opaque pallet such that no information is lost and then put this pallet below a microscope and enjoy viewing the whole movie! after 100 years! if this sounds too absurd and revolting..
then i suppose that it must only be some living species like humans who could have the inbuilt unexplored anatomy which could be honed to read out memories from water and be able to affect it further and be affected by it! I will start my experiments with water and report back!
You have put forward a lot of hypotheses. Good luck on your efforts to prove them.
Your childhood story about your grandmother, touching as it is, is a personal anecdote, not tantamount to evidence of medical efficacy of said prayer. That’s the reason why I hope – I sure hope – that when your child is ill, you take your child to a proper medical professional, not an alt-med practitioner quack, for investigations and treatments. Regardless of your “focused intent”, an ill child needs proper medication. Not providing that medication is utterly unethical and abusive.
Thankyou Kausik, I agree that proper medication is important, I feel it can be coupled with circumstantial betterment to aid it, and these circumstantial improvements could be anything depending on individual situations.., I request you to answer my 2 questions..1. as per your knowledge do you agree that the molecular structure of water can be changed without affecting its chemical composition? & 2. to your mind is it an acceptable hypothesis worth the study that effects in molecular structuring of water can be read/felt only at the molecular level by living beings alone or both living and non living entities or neither of them.
Sumeet Sharma, since you did express an interest to do an actual experiment to test a hypothesis, why don’t you put forth your hypotheses and a discussion on how you plan to test those – instead of asking for my agreement?
My agreement with your theories means nothing until there is empirical evidence supporting them.
There is another phrase for “personal anecdotes”. If enough of them are done over time, they become something we didactic laymen like to refer to as “proof”. Did British seamen need scientific studies to “prove” that limes cured rickets? No, the only science necessary to “prove” that limes cured rickets, was the thousands of personal anecdotes from British seamen who tried the cure, and found the miracle of vitamin C. Did surgeons need the scientific “proof” of Lister to show that washing a surgeon’s hands stopped infections from operations? No, they simply washed their hands, and reported the result, and the results were overwhelming. Listerine is a famous brand name for a reason. When primitive surgery is needed, a bottle of Listerine can save lives.
Mr. Boyle, perhaps you’d like to consider one particular aspect of this? You are, of course, right that British seamen didn’t need scientific studies to know limes cured scurvy (it’s not ‘rickets’ as you wrote. Rickets is caused by a vitamin D and/or calcium deficiency; scurvy is due to deficiency of vitamin C, which is present in limes, lemons and other citrous fruits). Ditto with the handwashing.
However, you are missing one important point. Because of these observations, scientists formed the hypotheses about the mode of action of vitamin C and the benefits of handwashing. These hypotheses were empirically tested using basic scientific techniques, leading to the knowledge of the principle of action of vitamin C; similar reasons why handwashing has become an important intervention to reduce hospital infections.
Your examples and homeopathy differ in one fundamental aspect. The principles on which classical homeopathy is based – especially the succussion and dilution to extraordinary levels – are completely untenable, because they go against the fundamental principles of physics, on which the known universe runs. Water is a molecule made by two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It really has no way of storing any information, or what you call ‘memory’.
Sigh. “That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.” No matter what you feel about homeopathy, if ever you or your loved ones are in need of medical attention, I hope – I really, really hope – you would go to a competent medical professional first, even if you fall back on homeopathy later.
In reality, finding a treatment for scurvy took the research of James Lind to establish that citrus fruit – vitamins being discovered only much later – will cure and prevent scurvy. What he did was take three groups of sailors suffering from scurvy, and treated them with different substances. Citrus proved effective. Therefore, your claim about “the only science necessary to “prove” that limes cured rickets, was the thousands of personal anecdotes from British seamen” is patently false.
Read in more detail here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/lind_james.shtml
Thank you for that clarification, Dragonblaze.
Please Google Top Secret Water full. Click on the very first one at the top of the page, and watch the full scientific documentary.
Sigh. Again with YouTube videos as “evidence”! Homeopathy U R doin’ it rong.
I am surprised that you could not find information about the methodology, since I found it pretty easily, here: http://www.weltimtropfen.de/forschung_individuen_english.html
Perhaps you missed this remark of mine in the post: I looked and looked, I really did. Did I find a journal article, a research paper, a scientific citation? NO. (Emphasis mine) Photo in a website does not any credible evidence make.
Please do not believe the proof of your lying eyes, Marsha. If an “expert” enters the room, then all common sense must lie down and pretend to be dead. And who defines what an “expert” is? WHY, THE EXPERTS! Follow the money. If the work of the scientific community is in doubt, can common-sense insurrection be far ahead? Why, think of all the billions which might be lost, if buggy whips were found to be ineffective in inducing greater speed from automobiles!
hello, here is luc mntagnier’s “paper” about his experiment on DNA and WAVES :
I don’t believe theses things much but you claim “We were not told how these images were taken: camera? Light microscope? EM? Could the different observations be image artefacts? …”
In website main page there is clearly said “These and other questions have been the subject of Prof. Dr. Kroeplin’s research team in Stuttgart for over fifteen years. Employing image capture using dark field microscopy has allowed us to uncover an astonishing microcosm contained within the inner structure of this commonplace and seemingly familiar medium.”
I agree with some of your points but don’t say there is not said what is used to take photos.
While I understand that scientists want facts that they can prove, in my experience scientists do seem to have a ‘closed mind’ mentality. Now I am not saying that water memory is true- or false- I am saying that if you look into the history of science there have been many theories that were laughed at and the people who thought up this stuff called quacks, until science progressed enough to ultimately prove or disprove it.
At one point in human history it was well believed that the ‘evil eye’ could make a person sick, but the thought of microscopic ‘things’ infecting people was laughed at. Dr. Semmelweiz was scoffed at for his idea of washing hands before delivering babies because he didnt have an ‘acceptable scientific explaination” for it. I could continue with ideas that were once laughed at and are now proven.
So again, I am not saying true or false, only that there is so very much we dont know yet.
Sadly, Argument from Ignorance is not a strong argument in favor of the water memory quackery. It is true that there is so much we don’t know. But that doesn’t automatically, by extension, make weird assumptions and spurious hypotheses true or credible. You should look up the concept of Prior Plausibility, so eloquently explained by Dr. Steven Novella in this post of his.
I’ve been using homeopathy on myself and my family for the last decade
It seems to have around a 50 to 60% success rate
(I say “it”, but of course I mean “my body” has a 50 to 60% success rate at healing itself, since all Homeopathy is supposed to do is pursuade my immune system to work harder)
My experience of modern medicine is it has around a 70% success rate. Maybe 80% (when I consider the occasional surgery).
However, it also costs me considerably more than the Homeopathic alternative. I’d estimate three times as much (though when I include my health insurance payments, that jumps to 100 times more!)
I find all you Homeopathic haters to be quite cruel to your fellow humans. Rather than let everybody find out what works best for them, and let them use a variety of potential cures, you preach that only science has the answers. I consider this to be misleading and harmful. Humans have been around for some 180,000 years. How on earth did we survive so long without modern science? Science gives with one hand and takes away with the other. Is it any surprise that as the number of medicines available increase the numbers of sick people also increase? That there are more pharmacies in towns than stores and restaurants selling organic food? Things worth considering.
The idea that water has a memory and thus that is how Homeopathy works has only been around since the late 1980’s, yet this form of treating the sick has been around for over 200 years. If it was completely worthless people would have stopped using it.
I’ll end with a case study. My last ailment was treated by my doctor with very expensive medicine that didn’t positively effect the problem. In fact, while under treatment the problem got a little worse. My Homeopathic medical book (written by a qualified MD) suggested not one single homeopathic remedy, but instead to change my diet and get more exercise. I did this. I still have the ailment, but am fitter and eating better (which actually makes me happier) than when I first had the problem. Both approaches would be consider a failure, but at least one had suggestions that improved my quality of life! I know “quality of life” doesn’t matter to science, but it sure does to human beings.
I am glad that you are feeling better from your dietary changes and getting more exercise. Homeopathy, unfortunately, has no power to persuade anything to do anything, since any dilution over 12C or 24X (as in Classical Homeopathy) will almost literally have nothing of substance in it except the solvent. But it is a difficult concept for a Homeopathy TrueBeliever™ to grasp.
If your science is based upon imaginary atomic particles like protons and electrons then this assumption of water retaining the memory of everything it touches would be questionable. The electric universe theory and the science of the Keshe Foundation AND from Tesla who invented the 20th century said “everything is energy, frequency and vibration” he purposely left out particles and mass and publicly debated Einstein over “silly equations”.
But if you have a drop or vessel of energy with frequency and vibration and dilute it no matter how many times, there is a residual of this energy, frequency and vibration still in the drop or vessel.
Its not that homeopathy is wrong or right even, its your understanding of the atomic structure that is wrong. Along with its applications.
At the workshop of joecellwaterscience.com we have several dozens of inventions and prototypes and full scale models to demonstrate water and its memory field patterns is very useful in almost every field of human endeavor.
This most basic of this science I utilized back in 1997 and built (on the principle of water memory) the first BEFE unit for advanced healing. to date some 20,000 units being an exact replica (not the cheap chines copies which dont work) have been sold at a price exceeding 1500 bucks. they sell because they work. In another limited field science product utilizing water memory is the SilverJoe cell. Until one analyses the water and the device NO visual assumption of how it operates is valid.
Lynn, your four comments (at 5:34 am, 5:47 am, 6:02 am, and now at 6:19 am my time) use a lot of words without actually saying much. I thought of consolidating your comments, but then decided to leave them as they are.
Just one response is required for all your comments: “… they sell because they work” [Citation Needed]
I just discovered this article “Water carrying only the electromagnetic signature of a DNA sequence can make a replica of the sequence out of simple building blocks”
Though it has nothing to do with the experiment shown in this You Tube video posted above, it will present the scientists among you with all the details of the experiments they made from which they make their claim that water has some kind of memory
Uhm, Dave, I am sorry to bear bad news… But Luc Montagnier’s crackpot theory (presented credulously in the weblink you posted above) has been debunked many times over. Let me leave you with this Rational Wiki link on Montagnier, and therein you’d find other relevant links – if you are so interested.
In 1999 I built a magnetic field generation device for the specific purpose of DNA work.
It was built entirely of precious metals in a special ring format to amplify the base memory of water. In effect we were doing what Luc did but 10 years earlier. I wrote him an email but he never replied. In essence we were attempting to do “cross germination” of seeds. that is, in the presence of a magnetic field generation device where seeds of differing species were germinating next to each other their DNA was intermingling or as Luc would have you “teleporting”.
We did not patent the idea. it was a proof of concept device. When the seedling plants became large enough to identify that they were a new species of mixed dna, they were destroyed as this Field Science concept and its applications over pathetic outdated particle science from that idiot Dumbinstein is just to advanced for ordinary humans to play with. Useful idiots continue to promote particle science of H20 over the Field Science of Element Water and its Field Science MEMORY to keep humans ignorant and control their technological inventions for the purposes of Metering and enslavement..
More of this can be learned at joecellwaterscience.com
Water has memory. And if it is about sex, this memory is very very strong. See this unbelievable video an you will understand
At joecellwaterscience.com we put forth the water memory fact along with many experiments based on this new science.
We have one device that amplifies the base frequency imparted into a container with a field generation device.
what it does literally is. Take a new container, dip it into a liquid of your choice (Ive done kerosene, tea tree oil and engine oil) then empty container and fill with fresh drinking water, immerse field generation device (joecell) and turn on DC power and fresh drinking water turns into liquid that new container was precharged with in just minutes.
Explain that with electrons and protons please.
Yes you can see it being done too. No its not on the internet. You have to come in person.
Everything is a Magnetic Field. Astrology is the study of celestial Magnetic Fields interacting with Life (water bodies) Energy fields on earth.
All is Field Science. Water is an electro-magnetic field.
It freezes along its Resonant field pattern or snowflake.
At joecellwaterscience.com we use this principle to pass fluids through ring magnets in a special arrangement that will take any liquid from (the ones we have done so far) raw sewerage, acid mine waste, sea water, FRESH LIQUID concrete, and as the liquid passes through the center of the ring magnets it TURNS (read transmutes) into fresh drinking water, NO by products. If the magnets are reversed then fresh drinking water turns into “saudi light crude” and if left to dry out nice black coal.
Yes you can see it demonstrated. No its not on the internet.
Until you come to Australia and witness this Kausik Datta I suggest you keep your crap outdated scientific ‘theories’ to yourself. see website for contact details.
Why would a real scientist ever bash another scientist for there work? Is it old schoolyard nightmares or jealousy and envy of the amount of funding someone gets? Some scientist said he preferred the harsh criticism of one man to the applause of a thousand believers. From that point many scientists think the only reason they should think is to be that critical figure, and they forget to advance themselves.
“Why would a real scientist ever bash another scientist for there (sic) work?”
I would urge you to take care to learn the difference between science and pseudoscience.
You make a very valid comment, Hunter. The crazed scrambling for government grant money is based on politics, not science, and those who echo the beliefs of large corporations which give millions to political candidates, are accepted in the scientific community. If homeopathy is valid and effective, then big pharma is in trouble, and in danger of extinction, and they know it. They will use any strategy or lie to discredit anyone who threatens their financial chokehold on those who cannot think for themselves, or refuse to do so.
The brain is made up of over 90 per-cent water. If water has no memory, then how can a human brain retain so much information? And if you doubt these experiments, then how about proving YOURSELF that these experiments are false, by conducting them yourself, with all the appropriate “scientific controls”, live, also on Youtube? How much more satisfying that would be to someone of your obvious scientific stature, and allow you to stand on your own feet, rather than on the shoulders of “giants” whose personal scientific stature is also seriously in doubt? The huge amount of “Idiot Gravity” that helps men of little minds tear down the ground-breaking achievements of real researchers is easy to use. New ideas scare cowards, and a coward will always listen to those in authority, rather than those who discover new ideas and concepts.
Does it matter if it is proved? Doesn’t it just make perfect sense? You know, like putting in flavorings, it obviously remembers the flavorings, because we taste them. LIke putting in lemons and limes. Also germs, if we drink from someone else’s germy waters, aren’t we also going to get sick? It’s highly possible.
Yes, it does matter. Baseless, unproven assertions are ultimately harmful in this context.
No, it doesn’t. It’s perfect nonsense, actually.
You do realize “flavorings” are chemical substances, right? There is no “remembering” going on by the water. The chemical substances dissolved in water interact with your taste-buds on the tongue and you taste them.
Again, if germs are floating about in the waters, it may contain toxic substances released by the said germs as well. So yes, if, generally speaking, our body immunity is low when we drink that water, it is likely we would get sick. But that is not because the water has ‘remembered’ any of those germs.
Possible that germs may make us sick, yes. Water having ‘memory’? Nyaah. That’s ignorant claptrap.
This is for you, Kausik Datta, You deleted my past post about Your Pseudo Particle Science, because of lack of links. I offer the following link http://www.magneticwaterscience.com/?page_id=57 where there are 2 pictures of burning oil made from water using water memory amplification procedures. The 2 pictures are captured from the video on the same site. The video is password protected and you can have the password if you contact me direct through the website. This is Field Science where everything is a Magnetic Memory Field of Water. Water has the Memory of Everything, so water can be turned into “saudi like” crude oil for less than a penny a gallon and it BURNS. We have done this oil into water and water into oil experiment dozens of times probably a 100 or more. Due to the present mindset of Govt and academia of which you are a part, there is strong opposition to this being public and as such its process is password protected so as to give interested parties a chance to view it without distraction from non believers.
Seeing is believing, and no amount of youtube seeing or articles are going to make you believe. This must be seen in person to believe. And bring your own water too. Otherwise you are not a scientist in any fashion merely a pseudoscientist who knocks us true experimenters and researchers.
This pseudoscientific babbling has gone on long enough and is now crossing into questionable territory. Look, you don’t have to convince me. If you have indeed been successful in turning water into combustible oil, you should contact your universities as well as the Nobel Prize committee. You will have solved a major, major crisis facing humanity.
I’d love to know how you have solved the problem of reconciling water’s memory of being oil (and, therefore, burning) with water’s memory of being, y’know, water (which douses fire).
Kausik. I haven’t forgot you just not enough time to write a mini thesis on the New Atomic Structure (your reconciliation). This isn’t a one off result like Pons and Fleischmann, We have done it many times and the Professors and Gov’t water testers at Southern Cross University have been testing our samples for over 20 years. We have even taken the apparatus and made oil from water in the car park and they took it inside for testing. It was also done at the University in Brisbane where they requested it be repeated 2 weeks later as they just could not sign off on a report after testing the samples. I have the sample test reports but thats all they would release as they would not commit to a report that had NO scientific explanation (in their science).
It would not solve any crisis for humanity as it merely places a huge bulls eye on our research that destabilizes the present world petro dollar system. If we patented it, there are rules in Aust as well as the USA where the Govt can seize the patent and place a lifetime gag order on the inventor if the invention is “against the national interest’ branding us persons of interest for drones. Again we have 20 years and 1000’s of experiments and 100’s of water/oil/coal tests in the files.
As for reconciling the waters unique properties, and its magnetic (memory) energy properties in particular, I will remind you that in oil fires one does NOT use water to try to put the fire out as you blanketly assume (y’know, water (which douses fire)) as the water BURNS.
This water burning effect has a video of the procedure, which is almost as simple as passing DC electricity through the water for about 5 seconds at 12VDC and 3 amps.and then setting the water on fire. The video is available with password at magneticwaterscience.com but again, you will have to send a personal email and ask for the password.
In another video I place a magnetic field in flowing water, inducing a permanent magnetic property to the water (plain or fresh) that when you take a flame to the water exiting the pipe the fire follows the water DOWN the water. Sorta contradicts the known thermodynamics of fire y’know.
We then conclude that if water can be made “magnetic” then it can be made to retain MEMORY.
You should refrain from using words like clap trap and nonsense in the same sentence as water and memory as this science is not going away and even if it takes another decade or 2, it will replace your particle science and water’s memory will be the new “science”.
Again You are invited to view personally turning water into oil if you ever visit Australia. No words, links or videos will convince you or anyone else. We do not even try. We merely present the information and invite interested persons to view. This ‘forum’ of comments is how we invite interested person to view. Its very under the radar. Its more nobel and safe too.
Lynn Eykamp / Joe Cell / Magnetic Water Science,
I grow weary of your substance-less pablum spouted in support of an untenable hypothesis; in your multiple messages, you have not even once adduced any real evidence favoring your rather extraordinary assertions. So this is likely going to be my very last reply to your comments.
Do ask these investigators at Southern Cross University and Brisbane U to publish their findings – especially making “oil from water”, providing details of source and chemical analysis of initial water, details of the process, mechanistic hypotheses, and chemical analysis of the ‘oil’ made therefrom. Please understand that your personal, unsupported or unsupportable anecdotes, however entertaining, would simply not suffice as evidence for your assertions.
The presumably ‘magical’ sample test reports that you claim to have are not valid unless the tests and the reports have been independently and rigorously verified, failing which they remain in the lore of anecdotes which don’t equal evidence. Your interjection “in their science” is rather telling because you seem clearly inclined towards creating a false dichotomy between ‘your science’ and ‘their science’; there is nothing of that sort. Science is science, and follows certain basic principles pertaining to investigating the natural world.
Right there is the classic generation of a Conspiracy Theory with a soupçon of paranoia. I welcome you to try this line of crank hypothesis elsewhere, but I am not going to entertain it on my blog.
Your understanding of how water douses fire sadly seems as deficient as your understanding of scientific processes in general.
“Claptrap” (as well as “nonsense”) seems le mot juste in this case. If your video with astounding but oh-so-secretive “results” requires a password to view, you are simply unaware of how science works and progresses. Rather than throwing videos out to random folks, I encourage you to publish your observations. There is now a peer-reviewed academic journal, called the Journal of Visualized Experiments (JoVE), which will allow videos as submissions in lieu of written papers. Let us know here once you do. Then we can talk. Else, you are simply wasting your time and mine.
I’m a bit disappointed in you Kaustic. There were many educated replies, but you managed to dodge a lot of them by preying on the weaker “i know its true cause my grandma told me” cases.
I applaud a good bit of swerving when I see it. But you do remind me of a cockroach. Whenever anyone provides serious support to the potential truth of this theory and flicks on the light of its possibility, you run back into your wall of skepticism and whine “not enough evidence, not enough evidence.”
All you’ve done is cower behind the authority of one scientist, peddle ammunition from their papers, then use poorly traced reasons as rocks of why it’s not possible to throw at any and all dissenters. But your panties get rippled when respected scientists in the community dare challenge your beloved strait jacket of empiricism, especially when you have to shit out all that constipated thinking others have done for you.
One thing I admire is your ability to argue. Your technique is beyond your grade school education, and I’m sure if your dad was around to teach you how to be a man, you may have made a good lawyer. But what I don’t understand is how your love to “peck to death” has made it at the top of Google.
Anyways, I can respect your intention, if only it were severed from anemic ego. Taken to the extreme, homeopathic medicine can be dangerous. But what’s so reprehensible is you as a person and your malicious reasoning. You’re simply destructive and can’t think or construct for yourself. You only negate. In fact, I reckon your entire mentation and ability to think is triggered by your vindictive lust to hurt and bully people verbally with snide comments and linguistic chest pounding.
You have such sharp powers of scrutiny you fanatically swing around like a sword. You’ve actually managed to cut off your own head. What’s even more amazing is how your tongue still wriggles out its words.
But ultimately, you’re nothing more than the caw of a deaf parrot. Thanks for the education.
Lots of words. Pity that the entire body of the comment is composed of ad hominem attacks towards me, and nothing else. If only you’d use your wit and words to adduce some actual evidence for the outlandish claims of homeopathy… If only.
What’s funny is that your reply just proved Z.’s point.
After reading many of these comments, I would like to propose a more positive approach. Actually design an experiment to confirm that water structure, as evident by the technique to photograph in the experiment of the video, changes or does not chang, in a scientific way, based upon the experimenter or specific object or intent being scientifically applied to the water.
Many “unscientific” findindings in our life have later been proven by “science” when new technology allows for the measurement or detection. So instead of being critical and ignorant of what technology is available, be positive and research a little to become aware of new technology and how to apply it.
Sure. Please design an experiment that you think will resolve this question and put it up here for discussion. Please remember to include appropriate controls.
Mr. Dutta you can go on cursing Homeopathy if you wish, but one thing is for sure that this system of Homeopathy works and it works a way lot better than the Allopathic system of yours in long run. So please stop with this nonsense of yours and wait until you see someone outrun your wits.
Till then…I’m off 😀
A bigot without any power of actual reasoning. When someone has made up their mind that they are going to stick to their beliefs no matter what, this is what they become.
Pseudo scientists such as the author of this preposterous polemic are the very worst kind of bigot. They have no capability for logical or original thought; only for sheep-like utterances of the “creed” into which they have been indoctrinated. They are so utterly convinced that they are right about everything, and so adroit at smarmy side-step answers, you’d almost be better off arguing with a bishop of the inquisition…….
Words, words, words… Still no evidence for homeopathy, though. B-O-R-I-N-G!
There is lot of Real Science work being done on Water and Ice — But you misssed this ? -Luc Montagnier, Nobel Prize Winner, Takes Homeopathy Seriously—-Dr. Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, has surprised the scientific community with his strong support for homeopathic medicine.
In a remarkable interview published in Science magazine of December 24, 2010, (1) Professor Luc Montagnier, has expressed support for the often maligned and misunderstood medical specialty of homeopathic medicine. Although homeopathy has persisted for 200+ years throughout the world and has been the leading alternative treatment method used by physicians in Europe, (2) most conventional physicians and scientists have expressed skepticism about its efficacy due to the extremely small doses of medicines used.
I have found Chiropractic Very Effective for my Back Pains Treatment in USA ! PhysioTherapy is equally Good and our own Iyengar Yoga — here Chiropractic was Completely Curative ! by itself !
I chanced upon your Blog and posted elsewhere-there also — There is a Nature paper describing the Efficacy of Hoemopathic Drugs – Quanitities – 1988-91 Nature – and later years in a hard core Chemistry subject (My Specialization) we talk about Hoemopathic quantities to describe catalysis phenomena –Whether it will be Extended to Water and catalysts Supports which could Retain catalyst Property by memory – My own extrapolation is Questionable and verifiable by Scienctific experiments and having said that Too often Science is predecided and Closed by Walls as much as Religious Dogmas – Science cannot be preDecided and is continuously Evolving ! proof by Experimentation has been and still will be the forte though and yes left to the Creative mind ! Not predecided !
There is lot of Classical and Modern Science being done on Ice and water even at our own IIT Kanpur and elsewhere
Dr. Suresh Iyer
17 Oct 2015
So YouTube is not Science only for Pop Music Ok – – Great but then you will turn back and say Water on Moon and Water on Mars has got nothing to do with the Structure of Ice or Memory of Water True – But Water is the Basis of Life ? and forms more than 50 % of the Human Body ?