Science of Water Memory?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by KUMAR5, Nov 15, 2020.

  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    stuff up
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Yet the science suggests otherwise .
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    It's gone way over his head, seriously.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    How do you know ?
     
  8. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Nope.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Expand , " Nope " .
     
  10. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    N o p e.
     
    paddoboy likes this.
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
    Water memory is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains.

    Water memory defies conventional scientific understanding of physical chemistry knowledge and is generally not accepted by the scientific community. In 1988, Jacques Benveniste published a study supporting a water memory effect amid controversy in Nature,[1] accompanied by an editorial by Nature's editor John Maddox[2] urging readers to "suspend judgement" until the results can be replicated. In the years following publication, multiple supervised experiments were run by Benveniste's team, the United States Department of Defense,[3] BBC's Horizon programme,[4] and other researchers, but no team has ever reproduced Benveniste's results in controlled conditions.
     
  12. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    32yrs later .....we know much , much , much more .
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Good .
     
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    reference? or talking out of your arse again?
     
  15. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    So, presumably, you have links to experiments that have replicated his work?
     
  16. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    Better than you talking out of your head apparently .
     
  17. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    I do , but I'm not going to give them to you . Do your own research . Figure it out , for yourself .
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just asking for references river? Got none? So I was correct?
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    In other words you actually don't.
    You're the one that made the claim, it is, therefore, up to you to support it.
    Since you won't (or can't) we can safely ignore the claim.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    You think ?
     
  21. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    The claim is safe .
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,227
    Again, unsupported.
    So we'll ignore that too.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,534
    Since you are devoid of any evidence as per all your crazy claims, here is an up to date paper........
    https://www.researchgate.net/public..._Memory_of_Water_Med_Sci_Hypotheses_2017_41-6
    • January 2017
    The Controversy Over the “Memory of Water”

    For a very long time, the idea of the “memory of water” tantalized not only the homeopathic community, but
    also serious scientists and researchers like Luc Antoine Montagnier, a recipient of the Nobel Prize.
    This misconception originated from an experiment conducted by the famous allergologist, Dr. Jacques Benveniste.
    He claimed
    to have shown in an in vitro experiment that highly dilute potencies of bee poison (apis mellifi-
    ca), even beyond the Avogadro number, are capable of producing structural changes in living organisms in the
    same way that the real poison from the bee can bring these changes about, being the actual degranulation of
    basophils. His paper was published in Nature under an obligation to prove his findings in front of a scientific
    committee in his own laboratory. Benveniste could not reproduce the results that his team was claiming.
    When a similar experiment was repeated by a different group of scientists and filmed by the BBC, it also failed.

    While it was obvious that the experiment was proved to be false, the scientific community concluded, by an
    extension of logic, that since the experiment was false, therefore homeopathy must also be a false system of
    therapy.
    Despite the fact that the experiment was repeatedly invalidated, some scientists, especially in the homeopath-
    ic community, continued to believe that Benveniste’s findings were true.

    In this way, the scientific community remains in confusion as to whether: a) water has memory, or b) homeop-
    athy is or is not a valid system of therapy.
    Since I have been an eye-witness of these events from their very beginnings, I am giving an account of the real
    story for both the homeopathic community and the sceptic
     

Share This Page