Icy claim that water has memory

JamesM

Graduate Poster
J
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Messages
1,821
Story from New Scientist

Each dilution was made according to a strict protocol, and vigorously stirred at each stage, as homeopaths do. When Rey compared the ultra-dilute lithium and sodium chloride solutions with pure water that had been through the same process, the difference in their thermoluminescence peaks compared with pure water was still there
Click to expand...

If anyone wants to follow this further, the journal reference is Physica A, 323 (2003), 67-74.
 
Interesting bit from Benveniste at the end:

After his own experience, Benveniste advises caution. "This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did," he says. "As I know to my cost, this is such a controversial field, it is mandatory to be as foolproof as possible."
Click to expand...

David
 
That is of course interesting. I hope the result will be tested by others.

As for homeopathy, however, this does in no way prove anything about its efficiacy. The argument that water has no memory is an attempt to prove the negative, that is, that homeopathy cannot work, but even the putative removal of this particular obstacle still leaves the proponents of homeopathy with the burden of proof of efficiacy.

Hans
 
Randi would bring attention to the sloppy protocol and the lack of blinding.

Move along folks, there's nothing to see...
 
Diamond said:
Randi would bring attention to the sloppy protocol and the lack of blinding.
Click to expand...

I'm reading the paper now. I agree that the lack of blinding is unfortunate, although not unexpected. Which other parts of the protocol do you find sloppy?
 
They never mentioned whether they analyzed the purity of the water after doing the dilutions to rule out contaminated samples.

Anyway, if this true, it can be reproduced. It doesn't sound like a difficult or expensive test.
 
Water DOES have memory.

Whenever I have a plumbing leak, I hope that, given enough time, the water will forget that there's a leak.

It never does. It's like an elephant that way. ;)
 
JamesM said:
I'm reading the paper now. I agree that the lack of blinding is unfortunate, although not unexpected. Which other parts of the protocol do you find sloppy?
Click to expand...

resurrecting this paper from 2003 is very important. i am hoping that james can make an appearance and explain to BSM as to why chemists don't do blinding in these situations. However, I agreee that blinding would be nice.

seems as though blinding might be necessary if the paper comes under attack from oh, say, SAD haters.


(also i think it is about time we start discussing Thermoluminescence and Louis Rey)
 
JamesM said:
I'm reading the paper now. I agree that the lack of blinding is unfortunate, although not unexpected. Which other parts of the protocol do you find sloppy?
Click to expand...
Unfortunate? That is a bit of an understatement. That alone invalidates the protocol. I can't seem to find a link to the full-text report right now, but I seem to remember that they were working with single samples too?

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
That is of course interesting. I hope the result will be tested by others.

As for homeopathy, however, this does in no way prove anything about its efficiacy. The argument that water has no memory is an attempt to prove the negative, that is, that homeopathy cannot work, but even the putative removal of this particular obstacle still leaves the proponents of homeopathy with the burden of proof of efficiacy.

Hans
Click to expand...

Hans,

i agree, it is interesting.

what it shows is a possible mechanism. it takes care of that little problem we have with Avogrado...


...and it shows that a chemical, molecule, substance diluted out of existance may indeed be imprinted in a polar solution.



now hans --- i am going to ask you why must you be so hostile and negative towards this type of research? why are you so eager to attack it?

wouldn't a true scientist have more of a curious approach, more of an open minded attitude?


don't you think that science --the world-- would be more interesting if imprinting exists?

many people claim that they wish the science of ultradilute solutions did exist but then go on to say that there is no way it could. if this wish is really true then why such a hateful, aggressive attack?
 
Olaf/QII said:
Hans,

i agree, it is interesting.

Unfortunately, the protocol is flawed, again. Why does this aways happen to homeopathy proponents :rolleyes:?

what it shows is a possible mechanism. it takes care of that little problem we have with Avogrado...

Ehr, no. Even if confirmed, you need to show it to be a universal mechanism.

...and it shows that a chemical, molecule, substance diluted out of existance may indeed be imprinted in a polar solution.

No. It indicates that two simple salts might be imprinted on deuterium. You cannot make generalizations from that. Since you have no idea of the possible mechanism, you cannot extrapolate to other mediums or solutes.

now hans --- i am going to ask you why must you be so hostile and negative towards this type of research? why are you so eager to attack it?

Hostile? Am i hostile? I don't think so, but consider:

- Everyday experience show us that when we dilute things enough, they cease to exist.

- Theory confirms and supports this.

- A few sporadic experiments with shoddy protocols yield results that indicate the opposite.

Why do you think I'm less than impressed?

wouldn't a true scientist have more of a curious approach, more of an open minded attitude?

More open minded than actually taking the time to read the reports and comment on them? How much more open minded can you get, without your brain falling out?

don't you think that science --the world-- would be more interesting if imprinting exists?

What I think would be interesting is irrelevant. I think the world would be interesting if pigs could fly, but it doesn't make them do so.

many people claim that they wish the science of ultradilute solutions did exist but then go on to say that there is no way it could.

And they are right.


if this wish is really true then why such a hateful, aggressive attack?

Which hateful attack? Is pointing out a glaring error in a protocol a hateful attack in your book :nope:?

What then do you call signatures with multiple-color, huge font slogans :rolleyes:?
Click to expand...

Hans
 
Olaf/QII said:
Dr Louis Rey using thermoluminescence can easily detect ghost lithium solutions from controls. This is a FACT.
Click to expand...
Has this FACT been demonstrated in blinded studies?
 
Originally posted by Olaf/QII
i am hoping that james can make an appearance and explain to BSM as to why chemists don't do blinding in these situations.
Click to expand...
Chemists don't do blinding at all under most circumstances, as it's completely unnecessary.

However, if the implications of your research was to overturn the last two hundred years of chemistry, then I would say that blinding was the least you could do. If I had been a referee for this paper, I would have rejected it.

I hadn't realised the paper was 2 years old now - how time flies. But we've now reached the point where the lack of replication relegates this from "interesting, but probably spurious" to "probably spurious".
 
BobM said:
They never mentioned whether they analyzed the purity of the water after doing the dilutions to rule out contaminated samples.

Anyway, if this true, it can be reproduced. It doesn't sound like a difficult or expensive test.
Click to expand...
All water is impure. Even after several distillations water contains several impurities in solution. The concentrations of those impurities are much more important than the supposed active principle used in homeopatic preparations after 10 succutions.
So, any homeopatic medicament with more than 10X is really using unknown impurities to imprint water's memory.
 
Olaf/QII said:
Hans,

i agree, it is interesting.

what it shows is a possible mechanism. it takes care of that little problem we have with Avogrado...
Click to expand...

Xanta,

No it doesn't, because the study is probably wrong and the absence of blinding, which you have now kinda semi half almost sorta admitted, was a major flaw in the study is the likely reason for their peculiar results.

Well, strike another one from the Big List of mysteries that need explaining.

Did you get anywhere with reading up on Bayes and probabilities and why it is appropriate to set aside the studies you cite unless they are performed more rigorously? This is really quite important and unless you get to grips with these concepts you are going to get nowhere. Remember that for homeopathy to be right pretty much all of the rest of science must be wrong, which does have a rather serious impact on your prior probability.
 
You know, I understand that a drowning man will grab at anything within reach to try to stay afloat, but this has always seemed a bit of a shot in the foot for homeopaths (in my opinion).

Just for the sake of argument, let's assume that water does have a memory. Let's say it has a perfect memory. Any solute in the water will imprint a perfect representation of itself.

Why the heck go to all the extra trouble of dilution and succussion? Why not just use the original solute? So what if water has a memory, that doesn't show any method (or any evidence) that the "remembering" water will do anything other than what the original substance does!!!!

And if the "remembering" water reacts just like the solute in all these tests, then it has the same side effects, as well.

It just makes no sense.

There are so many impossible things in homeopathy, and the homeopaths seem to be sitting around the edges of it. It makes no sense. If my house is on fire, I'm going to be geting the fire extinquisher before I start worrying about vacuuming the carpets!
 
JamesM said:
Chemists don't do blinding at all under most circumstances, as it's completely unnecessary.

However, if the implications of your research was to overturn the last two hundred years of chemistry, then I would say that blinding was the least you could do. If I had been a referee for this paper, I would have rejected it.

I hadn't realised the paper was 2 years old now - how time flies. But we've now reached the point where the lack of replication relegates this from "interesting, but probably spurious" to "probably spurious".
Click to expand...

I completely disagree. Other physicists who witnessed and examined Rey's work are confidant that the results are authentic.

they were quoted as saying, "It is trustworthy physics".

Skeptics and pseudoskeptics do not be afraid of this type of research.


BSM,

Concerning bayesian....

I find the entire argument to be quite a S---T----R------E----T----C---H when applied to my studies. just take the results for what they are and do not use this odd reasoning to distract you from what really occurs in these in vitro experiments (histamine/basophil, etc)

BSM and others,

Do not be like Galileo Galilei's persecuters. Try to keep an open mind as difficult as it may be. --and i can state that from experience for once i too attacked SAD's (serially agitated...)
 
YOUR studies?? Pardon? Let's at least be accurate from the start, shall we?

It's your mindless parrotting of someone else's highly suspect and disreputable studies.

Get it, got it, good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom