Talk:Water memory/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Biased

This article is of low quality because it is biased. The writer of this article presumes to speak for "modern science" when in fact, physics Nobel Prize winner Brian Josephson has spoken in defense of Benveniste's work. One would think that a Nobel Prize winner would be considered a member of "modern science".

A scientific hypothesis doesn't have to be shown to be wrong in order to be rejected or ignored - it is rejected if it can't be shown to be right - which is what has happened with water memory (so far, at least: new evidence could change that, of course).

This is a common misunderstanding among proponents of fringe theories: They think that once something has been proposed, it has to be accepted unless it is disproved. ("No one has ever found an error!" is a common cry amongst the true believers.) The way science works is that hypotheses can safely be ignored until they are shown to be right (or at least close enough that it's worth the effort to bridge the gap).

Which is why I reverted the last edit. - DavidWBrooks 00:44, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with Wikipedia, but the name suggests a neutral presentation of information. There is such a strong tone of bias in this article, through wording, omission, and an overall leaning which seems plain to someone (like myself) who walked into the page knowing nothing about the history contained within. Now...it seems to me that there are more standards by which to report a factual history than the accepted scientific ones. There are a huge variety of growing perspectives out there and you simply can't choose the standard scientific one and claim to not be biased. Essentially, you are being flagged as biased, because no self-respecting reader of this article would seek homeopathic treatment or consider becoming a homeopath. As the second most used system of medicine in the world it seems like homeopathy must have more going on with it than what you bring to us..no?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.187.236 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the links attached to the article

I am not arguing that it's right or wrong. I am saying that it has not been proven to be right or wrong, therefore it should not just be considered "Bad science" or "Scientific misconduct" as the attached links suggest.

Which is why I am going to remove these links than. Yurivict

The fact that the scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with junk science / bad science and scientific misconduct is all that is necessary for the links to be included in the article. If you dissent, that is fine; but you cannot over-rule mainstream scientific consensus. I encourage you to add a (NPOV) dissenting section to the article, outlining support for water memory, rather than simply cutting out the bits you disagree with. Best wishes :) -- FP 09:15, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Remember that in any article, "see also" links are not necessarily directly associated with the given topic, nor do they constitute a "judgement" of the topic. Rather, they have some relevant association. I'm sure everyone interested in water memory would also be interested in the concepts of junk science and scientific misconduct, irrespective of their position on the existence of water memory. Fair enough? -- FP 09:21, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Can you provide references that "scientific community at large considers the issue of water memory to be associated with junk science / bad science / scientific misconduct"? As I understand community has only rejected this theory. There are two experiments that I am aware of showing no proof of water memory. But there is no evidence known to me that affiliates of this theory are insincere, therefore why "misconduct"? There is no proof that such memory does not / can not exist. If any -- references please. Yurivict

I don't want to get into an endless debate on the evidence for and against homeopathy (I could, but it's not necessary). All I want to do is demonstrate the rationale for the links as they exist in the "see also" section.

Start by reading homeopathy and its talk page. That should demonstrate to you that the topic is at least controversial, and certainly a good many intelligent people do not believe in water memory. These pages also list plenty of evidence that casts doubt on the idea of water memory and the motives of some proponents.
Read Jacques Benveniste's obituary in Nature, the world's most prestigious scientific journal (here) (Quote: "widely disbelieved by scientists").
The above-mentioned Benveniste was sacked from INSERM after his infamous experiments were shown to be poorly designed and erroneous. Sloppy procedure, with improper data recording, inexplicable artifacts and repeated failures of replication suggest scientific misconduct, bad science and/or junk science. Many other scientific magazines said as much in various editorials (I imagine I could find precise issue and page numbers, but I hope that won't be necessary).

These references should convince you that irrespective of whether water memory actually exists, the linked pages have some relevance to the article. For instance, let's say a hard-core supporter of Benveniste visits this page. He might appreciate the "see also" links which you object to, as they tell him about these ideas that have been associated, rightly or wrongly, with Benveniste and water memory in general. The mere fact that these pages are linked in "see also" does not constitute a definitive verdict on water memory. They belong.

Finally, I'm interested why you object to these three terms (junk science, bad science, scientific misconduct) but don't seem to mind pseudoscience and pathological science. Can you tell me why you don't want to remove these terms? (If you accept that water memory constitutes pseudoscience, you must tacitly admit it is also bad science!) -- FP 11:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

These different pseudo, junk, pathological, proto and bad science, together with scientific misconduct definitions need to be linked in one article. The effect of referring to them as a list of different links in this way could be considered intimidatory. Please remove them: they are all self-referential in any case - that is, pursuing one leads to the others. Alternatively, add examples where the scientific community has first ridiculed and then had to accept advances in knowledge and understanding.

I am not making a judgment on the issue of water memory Jeffrey Newman 05:41, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest, as well as above, also adding, e.g holistic science and others as necessary, to preserve NPOV Jeffrey Newman 09:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In retrospect I agree that the list of links was "intimidatory." I have made some provisional changes in the interests of NPOV. If anyone desires more changes, please go ahead and make them, and we will discuss it here if any more disagreements emerge. -- FP ^{<talk><edits>} 03:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I only have an objection to the link for "Meridian" at the bottom of this article. I am fine with the -science links, and a link to homeopathy or to Masaru Emoto because they seem self-evidently relevant. However, singling out one facet of one non-Western scientific tradition seems quite definitively NPOV. Lumping in the much larger and deeper controversy about Chinese Medicine with something that is relatively minor comes off as vindictive. The fact is there is far more research surrounding the various aspects of Chinese Medicine than there is about "water memory." Though I will profess here for the sake of disclosure, my personal bias in favor of Chinese Medicine, I believe my objection is sound based on the rules of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.225 (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Polywater

In what way could polywater be thought of as similar to water memory? This statement seems to be suspect. Polywater was, as the name implies, believed to be a polymerized form of water. I am unaware of any "memory effect" involved, nor do the properties have anything in common. Maury 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point: aside from involving water and being a scientific-sounding belief that was debunked, it has no connection at all. How did that stay in so long? I'm removing it. - DavidWBrooks 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"pseudoscience" label

I have removed the statement that water memory is pseudoscience. Though the idea may very well be wrong, that does not mean it is pseudoscientific. The pseudoscience label only applies to ideas claiming to be science but which cannot be checked by the scientific method. Water memory, however, can and has been checked (with mixed results of course). A wrong or controversial theory is not the same as a pseudoscientific theory. nadav 08:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not true. As the page here on the wiki states: "is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method.". The difference is an important one; to be pseudoscience the belief has to be non-scientific. There is no suggestion that it cannot be tested scientifically, just that the people involved don't do so. Maury 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, well, "pseudoscience" is pejorative anyway, might as well call it "crap" or "BS" or "nonsense" ...well, at least IMHO...:) There's a whole discussion going on about using the term at: RfA on Pseudoscience. I'm following it to see what they decide. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my paraphrase was wrong. Regardless, my point stands that "water memory" is not some project or endeavour masquerading as science, just an idea that is probably wrong. However, homepathy does seem to qualify for the title. nadav 04:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - speaking as something who agrees that water memory is almost certainly wrong. "Pseudoscience" is for quack machines sold on late-night infomercials that babble incoherently about "quantum" or "energy" without content. - DavidWBrooks 12:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I disagree. I think that water memory is indeed an example of pseudoscience. It's basically a non-real effect that has no basis in any known science, yet talks about itself in technobable terms and claims to be the scientific basis for homeopathy. It doesn't exist on it's own, its a synonym. Unless you separate the two concepts the distinction becomes difficult to see. Don't get me wrong, if water memory pre-existed homeopathy and was co-opted, that would potentially be a counterargument for automatically labeling it, but that's not the case. So then if you believe homeopathy to be pseudoscience, how does one not automatically assume the same here? 12:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think your judgements are unfair. Firstly, the idea has indeed been treated as a physical theory separately from homeopathy. Louis Rey's experiments [1] gave some support to the theory and were published in a respected journal. Additional evidence for altered properties of extremely diluted solutions can be found in the articles of Elia et al published in the Journal of Molecular Liquids, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Annals of the NY Academy of Science, etc. Just because these findings contradict current understanding of the physical processes does not mean we can already label it as pseudoscience before it has been scientifically tested. True, proponents of homeopathy may pretend that water memory has already been proven, but that makes only those claims pseudoscience. For now, we should reserve final judgement until more tests are done. nadav 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ennis email incorrectly attributed

Okay, first, someone hadhere (before I came along) mention of Ennis' objection to how Horizon performed the experiment. I then moved her e-mail reference to a 'ref' tag. Here is the wiki code prior to my removal of it:

However, Ennis claimed that Horizon did not faithfully reproduce her experiment.<ref name="Ennis email">{{cite web | url=http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/by_category.jsp?id=37 | title = Email from Madeleine Ennis detailing differences between the BBC Horizon program's experiment and her own | date = 2003-12-9 | accessdate = 2007-08-08 | quote= }}</ref>

I then saw this, from [2], authored by Dana Ullman (a homeopathic advocate who was interviewed by ABC's 20/20 and who first suggested the Ennis experiment as a reasonable experiment to replicate; however, both the BBC and ABC created a separate experiment that had never before been conducted and suffered from serious design flaws:

ABC News' 20/20 program with their reporter John Stossel is presently scheduled to air a segment on homeopathy on Friday January 30th. This report will include a seemingly legitimate laboratory experiment that seeks to prove or disprove the effects of homeopathic medicines.

The experiment that 20/20 produced was supposed to be a replication of an experiment that had been conducted numerous times in the past and had been published in scientific journals. This study used extremely small doses of histamine to reduce the number of basophils, a type of white blood cell that increases in numbers during allergy symptoms. This study was even conducted successfully several times by Dr. Madeleine Ennis who is a professor of biochemistry and a former skeptic of homeopathy.

And further down

Turnbull used a chemical, Ammonium chloride, in this experiment which is widely known to kill basophils, making the study impossible to any homeopathic medicine or any drug to have any effects.

So I'm confident it this experiment that Ennis objected to, not the one that was performed in front of Randi.

And to drive one final point, Ennis' experiments were not the same as Benveniste's.

Despite my reservations against the science of homoeopathy," says Ennis, "the results compel me to suspend my disbelief and to start searching for a rational explanation for our findings." She is at pains to point out that the pan-European team have not reproduced Benveniste's findings nor attempted to do so. Lionel Milgrom. "Science: Thanks for the memory: Experiments have backed what was once a scientific 'heresy'", The Guardian, March 15, 2001. as quoted from [3]

--Otheus 19:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

After having read the e-mail in question, I am confident she was referring to the Horizon experiment. In particular there were several mentions of the primary Horizon experimenter's name. Either I am misreading what you are trying to say above, or, well, I don't know at that point. Anyway the quotes seemed more than on-topic, and I have restored them in the newly laid-out article. Maury 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article

I have been watching the development of this article over the years and it is improving and becoming more informative all the time. I have now traced the basis of the anonymous comment at the head of the discussion page about the Nobel Prize Winner and added an external link and the comment from Prof Josephson in the body of the article. I do not yet know how to do a citation rather than an external link and I'm also not entirely convinced how valuable that it is, anyway.85.210.255.81 12:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It still reads like a bad news report, giving too much credence to water memory. Something lost on most journalist, and apparently Wikipedians, and indeed anyone who is not scientifically literate, is that balanced discussion does not need to occur when the issue itself is imbalanced. Why is no mention made about the inverse relation between the quality of studies done and the amount of effect homeopathic concoctions have? The fact of the matter is that there is not a single shred of decent evidence for this concept that defies the basic laws of physics. Calling this a good article is a bit of a stretch. Shawn M. O'Hare 02:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a meta-analysis or a similar source that backs up what you are saying? nadav (talk) 04:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I hope I've beaten this into shape to everyone's satisfaction. I have added a largish section on the original test series and the whole Nature controversy that resulted. I have also gathered the follow-up experiments into groups, with full cites on each one. From what I can see of the cites in this article, and others that I found as a result of tracking these ones down from REF to cite format, it appears that every "success" experiment has a corresponding direct "non-success" one that followed it. There appear to be three such experimental runs, the original ones from Nature, the telephone/internet ones that followed in the 90's, and finally the Ennis/Horizon test runs. I think it's safe to leave it at that. Maury 20:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your rewrite was a lively and interesting read. A couple of points for what changes I think should be done now: 1) more sources and inline citations should be provided for the details of the story. Is it all taken from the Time magazine article? 2) There have been a few more experiments in the past four years or so. These should be added. Note that these suggestions are not directed at you in particular, since you've already done quite a lot to improve it. Thanks and good job! nadav (talk) 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually most (but not all) of the material in the upper section I got from the two Nature articles, which are available online. The Time article was just a few pithy quotes and some history. I highly recommend reading the second of the two Nature articles BTW, because it's extremely succinct in terms of summing up everything that went on in that first rush, both from Maddox and Benvenist. As to the second point, if you have any more cites, please drop a note here and I'll try to work them in too (even an url or article title is fine, I can look these up on medline quick like a bunny). I'd really like every "positive" to have a "failed" if one exists, and vice versa; that way the reader can simply look up the cites and decide for themselves. Maury 18:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Chaplin's site has a great deal on the scientific aspect. It explains in what ways water can and cannot have memory. There are a lot of very useful papers cited in it, with recent review of the matter having been published just now. nadav (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I very much approve of the edits. I would still caution against too much balance in presentation. The vast majority of positive studies for pseudoscientific claims do tend to suffer from subtle to not so subtle methodological errors, or simply misuse of statistics. The layperson is not prepared to find these flaws, and so it is the duty of the editors to make them, if any, clear. Shawn M. O'Hare 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I agree. And on that note I welcome everyone to read the second of the FASEB links, here. There's an excellent section on how they controlled the possibility of he-said-she-said problems, clearly improving on the system Maddox used (ie, nothing). Maury 20:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Intro statement

Is it just me, or is the intro statement somewhat misleading? When I think "homeopathy" I think "like cures like". The whole small-doses thing is sort of secondary, it's certainly a part of classic homeopathy, but by no means its definition. There's nothing in the original homeopathic concept that demands water memory, at least not that I'm aware of (not being an expert by any means). Would it not be more accurate to state that the concept of water memory has been "adopted" by modern homeopathy? Or perhaps "latched onto"?

Another terminology issue is a portion that is now removed that claimed water memory was a pseudoscience (see this page, above). I would agree that it's definitely not an example of pseudoscience. However it does seem to fit every definition of pathological science, a different issue. I found that by typing "pathological science water memory" into Google the first hit returns an article on just that topic from Columbia U, here. The definition in bold here is pretty much exactly what Maddox stated in the Nature article. Is this worth mentioning, or is it too unbalancing?

I'm tempted to make both of these changes, the later being cited makes it worth mentioning, but I'd like to hear your comments first.

Maury 17:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Water memory wasn't just latched on to by homeopaths, it was invented in order to explain homeopathy. However, it is true that water memory is now often studied independently of it. I have no opinion on the latter change for now. nadav (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the way you describe it here is a definition of pseudoscience. But given that I don't have any direct quotes saying this, and everything hates the word no matter how suitable it might be, I'll just leave that one alone! Maury 12:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement in the lead "However, while some studies, including Benveniste's, have claimed such an effect, double-blind repetitions of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the results, and the concept is not accepted by the scientific community." seems to indicate that the original studies were not double-blinded. The original paper (actually E. Davenas, F. Beauvais, J. Amara, M. Oberbaum, B. Robinzon, A. Miadonna, A. Tedeschi, B. Pomeranz, P. Fortner, P. Belon, J. Sainte-Laudy, P. Poltevin and J. Benveniste, Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against IgE, Nature 333 (1988) 816-818, not as given in ref 3) states they used "blind double-coded procedures involving six laboratories from four countries;". I suggest that the term 'double-blinded' be removed or that it be inserted before 'studies'. Martin Chaplin (talk) 10:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical references

Please insert some historical references regarding to who, when and where originated the concept. Please also be aware that there are too many references to magazines, perhaps the article should have more solid references (see WP:TORIGRS) Librarian2 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the concern, but I have moved the tag down because it's so big. I put it in the refs section. Maury 18:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I relocated the tag to an area still visible on arrival but not at the top and reduced the size of the tag. Daoken 19:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I inserted the places where historicasl references or citations could be placed, also reduced the tag ℒibrarian2 20:18, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Science tag

Water memory isn't a scientific theory. How is this disputed "science"? It's a disputed hunch or guess. No more. Can this box be removed? Pdelongchamp (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Water memory is one of the better known examples of pseudoscience, hence the pseudoscience infobox. Why the caption of the infobox says "disputed science" - see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Why "disputed" when it's really "pseudo"? --Cubbi (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

there are studies which show some positive results. --70.107.246.88 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Ennis email

Is there a source for Ennis' complaints other than from Dana Ullman in a private email? Ullman is not a credible source 88.172.132.94 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear 88, I realize that you wrote this back in December, but just in case you still have this point of view, why am I not a credible source? In the meantime, professor Martin Chaplin is certainly a credible scientist. He has reviewed the evidence, and he fully agrees with me. [4] Also, please simply review the protocol, developed by Wayne Turnbull of Guys Hospital, that the "tv experiments" used: [5] By the way, Turnbull has no history of conducting or publishing research on basophils. He is a medical technologist. Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your website is not a credible source, as it fails RS and V as a source for anything that isn't directly about you. Even then it's pushing RS and BLP in many cases. The protocol was reviewed by independent scientists and found to be good. Ennis has not publicly supported your statements, and even if she did her views are those of one scientist. Wikipedia does not add hearsay to articles, especially not scientific ones, and your "Ennis email" is a hearsay response to hearsay allegations. I also dispute your claim that Martin Chaplin's website is a RS; the views expressed there are certainly not generally accepted --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed by Dr88 that he has been confusing me with Lionel Milgrom. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I only confused you with Lionel Migrom on my talk page entry, not here. The above is my opinion of your water memory and homeopathy website, which was added before you became an editor here. I stand by my opinion of your website as not a reliable source (it lacks scientific credibility, especially in it's editorialising). How about we stop this discussion here, as we clearly disagree about the value of your website. It clearly fails WP:RS. I have amended my comment above to try to appease you. What advice would you like? --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand that pretty well all websites are not believed to be RS (although I try to make mine NPOV and it contains very many cited RS). I am very unsure concerning your evidence that 'the views expressed there are certainly not generally accepted'; certainly I have not received any such negative views at my website (I have a guestbook for comments and none have been deleted) and my 'homeopathy' page has been there since July 2000 and is well visited. As these 'views' may well concern any edits discussed for this page, it would be useful to know of your concerns now. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells

I added a see also link, because water does exhibit hysteresis (i.e., memory) under some demonstrable circumstances. This was reverted, so I would welcome discussion. —Whig (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Claim

As stated: "Pure water retains memory of particles once dissolved in it and thus can elicit similar biochemical responses in living organisms to what the original particles would have done."

Is this claim an accurate paraphrase of the theory?

“	Such strongly critical or downright sarcastic or ironic stances do not appear entirely justified: the concept of the "memory of water" is no more than a metaphor denoting the hypothesis whereby the physicochemical properties of water can be modified by a solute and remain so for a certain period of time even in the absence of the solute itself. If this were true, biology and medicine would undergo not a revolution, but certainly a significant increase in knowledge and in the related applications. It is not a matter here of postulating an "entity" (memory) which may reside in the water, but of studying the physicochemical properties of water itself. In this sense, talking about memory is not so very different from talking about temperature, dielectric constants, viscosity, and other properties. An example may serve to clarify the concept here: if we take a little water and put it in the freezer, after a certain period of time it will freeze. On removing the water from the freezer, it will be observed that the block of ice, though now exposed to room temperature, will remain a block of ice for some time. Thus, there exists in water a property which enables it to "remember" for a certain amount of time that it has been kept in the freezer. For those who find this example self-evident, we can give another: if we take a tape coated with ferric hydroxide and subject it, as it is running, to a series of differences in potential in precise succession, changes in charge occur on the magnetic substrate; the tape will remember those changes for hundreds of years. It is not the memory of water, in this case, but the memory of iron, which consists in a particular form that the magnetic substrate assumes on the tape.	”
—Paolo Bellavite, M.D. and Andrea Signorini, M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology, 2002, pp.68-69

—Whig (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like Benard cells that you've mentioned, the examples brought up by these guys have nothing to do whatsoever with the alleged phenomenon of water memory as described in its original Nature article. They attempt to use a common defense for discredited postulates - calling it "a metaphor" and broadening its definition to include many unrelated existing physical effects. This said, their book is a published and often-cited reference, and although I would not call it reliable in terms of presenting fact (I've just read what's available of it on books.google.com), it certainly seems reliable in terms of presenting modern homeopathy advocates' views. --Cubbi (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Everything in this universe has a memory. The question is: does it last long enough, and in a form that is of use to us? Clearly in certain metals it does, or we would not be writing here. The same holds for many other substances, both organic and anorganic. Now, we know that water molecules can exist in various patterns, so it seems a substance worthy of investigation. Guido den Broeder (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

“	The concept of the memory of water revolves around whether the properties of such aqueous solutions change with time and/or processing and/or previous history. There are two aspects this problem. Can any memory of water effect be evidenced?, and is there satisfactory explanation for the appearance of memory in water? Clearly the first element should be sufficient. If there is evidence that the history of a sample of water affects its properties, then the ‘memory of water’ concept is proven without the need for a rationale for its action. However, it would seem that many scientists require an answer to the second part as well because the concept that water may possess a memory effect is perceived as so unlikely that simple proof that it happens is insufficient for them. In other areas of science experimental evidence is easily accepted where people ‘believe’ it to be true without a known rationale for its mechanism. An example is gravity. We believe it due to numerous observations but do not know how it exists. There is no requirement that the explanation for the memory of water is the correct explanation only that it must ‘seem’ reasonable. Of course, if it is also correct, that is a bonus! There are several ways water can be shown to have a memory. As a simple example, human taste is quite capable of telling the difference between two glasses of water, processed in different ways (eg one fresh and one left undrunk for several days), where present analytical methods fail. There is a change, of course, but such a change would never be noticed by computer simulations on pure H2O. Vybíral and Voráček have shown that water changes its properties with time and its previous history.13 There is also a well-known ‘memory’ effect concerning the formation of clathrate hydrates from aqueous solutions whereby previously frozen clathrates within the solution, when subsequently melted, can predispose later to a more rapid clathrate formation.14 These examples may be explained, for example, by the presence of nanobubbles, extended chain silicates or induced clathrate initiators,15 respectively. Once an explanation is accepted, of course, the ‘memory of water’ seems no puzzle at all.	”
—Martin F. Chaplin, The Memory of Water: an overview, Homeopathy: Volume 96, Issue 3, July 2007, Pages 143-150

(doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.006) —Whig (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, so, in other words, it's proven true because this fellow says it is. Lovely circular logic, there. Vanished User ^talk 07:11, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

not supportted (sic)

The lead already states the level of support science has for the concept. Besides, the edit is terrible grammar and spelling. Really unnecessary and comes across as a tendentious negative coloring, when the article and lead already very well says that the concept is not supported by science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminbruheim (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go - It wasn't entirely clear what it was, why it was invoked, what the mainstream view was, and what evidence there was for it. Realise that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE require us to take a bit of care to say that minority scientific views are in the minority; but this will probably do. Vanished User ^talk 14:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Water Memory is not entirely a homeopathic concept. It is mentioned in other (fringe) literature as well, so the focus on homeopathy is unwarranted. I will try to edit it a bit more to my liking. Since it is already framed as homeopathy it doesn't need further explanation imo. The majority view, that the current science is inconclusive is enough. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 15:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Weel, irt's originally from homeopathy, I believe, and mainly there. Basically, I wanted a who-whay-where-when-why-how lead, and so added in what seemed missing. Vanished User ^talk 17:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I mostly see the term bandied about by homeopathy skeptics. On the other hand, water does have memory under some conditions by some definition, as Bénard cells demonstrate quite clearly. —Whig (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

LEAD

Who defines what "water memory" is? This seems to be a definition invented by skeptics in order to be debunked. I have read better explanations, see Talk:Water memory#Claim above. —Whig (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Water memory was a concept that beneviste talked a lot about. However if he defined the concept is un-sure. I am likely to believe beneviste was not thinking about homeopathy when he devised the theory, but I don't have his books. He merely used water as a faster transmitter of body signals than the body fluid or chemical signals. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 08:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If someone can find a reference to where Beneviste may have defined this term or simply described whatever phenomenon this article is supposed to be about, I think that would be a good starting point. Then we can source criticisms of the theory and try to make this article better. —Whig (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The journal Homeopathy, while not generally a reliable source, is an excellent source for saying what homeopaths say about it. I believe there was a recent issue devoted solely to Water memory. Vanished User ^talk 10:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

What about Benjaminbruheim's point, that the original concept may have had nothing to do with homeopathy? We still need to get to the bottom of what we're talking about even if it is also (and relevant to this article) pertinent to homeopathy. We should source criticisms of the theory both positive and negative. But according to Bellavite, it's just a metaphor anyhow. —Whig (talk) 10:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Benjaminbruheim appears to be wrong: See doi:10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.004. Vanished User ^talk 12:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The LEAD has been edited, but there is still a problem with how "water memory" is being defined. Water memory is a controversial concept which holds that water is capable of retaining a "memory" of particles once dissolved in it makes no mention of succussion, and if we are talking about anything to do with homeopathy omission of that step is a problem. I don't think we can just define water memory to be a straw man, we need to use the definition provided by a V RS. —Whig (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being a straw man? I can't recall offhand whether they used succussion or not, but if water memory existed without it then it would be a possible method for homeopathy (although succussion would probably "wipe" the memory), so the omission isn't really a problem unless you claim it disproves homeopathy, which the article doesn't --DrEightyEight (talk)

I said it's a straw man. Anyhow, without succussion it has nothing whatsoever to do with homeopathy. —Whig (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopaths, at the time, and the supporters of the water memory theory disagree with you, and it was a very important point for the scientists and the notability of the water memory concept. Also, see my reply below (and reread my reply above). There is no straw man here. --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For unknown reason, Dr88 loves to ignore the influence of succussion and even question its importance, while the legal manufacture of homeopathic medicines define it as an integral part of homeopathic pharmacology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaullman (talk • contribs) 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If water memory was shown to exist for long time periods without succussion, then it would still be a possible mechanism for homeopathy to work. However, since homeopathy has not been shown to work, and as the known forms of "water memory" last for only tens of microseconds, then this is all moot --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of water memory are you talking about, then? You are trying to debunk a theory that has nothing to do with homeopathy? Let me be clear, no homeopath believes in the concept of water memory as described by this LEAD. —Whig (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As for "known forms of water memory" only lasting for such short times, that is completely false. Some forms have been shown to be persistent. Again, please see Bénard cells and recognize that you are not correct, water can exhibit path-dependent memory under some conditions. —Whig (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of the word memory in that article is a gross oversimplification, which I think shouldn't be included or should be fully contextualised and explained --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, but feel free to go on over there and make some changes. Let's see what the editors of that article think. —Whig (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good changes. Your edit says, "In this way Bénard cells exhibit a form of hysteresis; in simple terms they can be thought of as having a memory of their history." Are you comfortable with that language? And does this have relevance to an article on water memory? —Whig (talk) 08:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that "memory" has been changed in that article, and correctly so as it is a misleading word in that connection. It is talking about "flow", and flow simply reveals a path from one place to another, and we know that flow can be influenced by speed, temperature, obstructions, curves (in a stream), gravity, etc., and therefore Bénard cells have nothing to do with homeopathy or water memory. -- Fyslee / talk 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken, Bénard cells have nothing to do with flow. They have to with metastable structures formed in water when subjected to a sufficient temperature gradient and which have memory in the same sense as a hard drive does, they retain state persistently unless altered and then retain a new state. But hopefully now that we have a water expert in the talk he may be able to explain better. —Whig (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Some good references

doi:10.1038/news070806-6 (Nature News)
doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.05.008 (This is the editorial overview to the issue of Homeopathy devoted to water memory - poke around in that issue. Homeopathy is not a reliable source, but is an excellent one for What Homeopaths Say.)

Just a comment, I don't think you can categorically say that a particular source is reliable or not. Homeopathy is not a reliable source for what critics of homeopathy think, but it is a reliable source for what some homeopaths think. My only objection is to you saying it "is not a reliable source." It is a peer reviewed journal not a website or some other unreliable source. —Whig (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's the choice of "peers" that is problematic. I think it's impact factor is very low too --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the more important question for our purposes is not what it's impact factor is relative to more mainstream journals in other fields of science, but relative to other homeopathic journals or publications. —Whig (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't, if we're talking about science. If we're talking about what homeopaths say, then Homeopathy is a good source --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

{{doi:10.1016/j.homp.2005.02.004}} Says that Benveniste was working in a homeopathic mode. Vanished User ^talk 12:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanished User ^talk 12:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobelist and Harvard professor's research on the memory of water

Many of you serious scientifically-mind people may know the work of Percy Williams Bridgman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and professor at Harvard. He wrote several books, including the THE PHYSICS OF HIGH PRESSURE (1949). He researched the effects of freezing water at various altitudes and found that freezing water at higher altitudes created different ice crystallization patterns than at lower altitudes. And yet, when he melted the ice that was frozen at a high altitude and then refroze it at a low altitude, the ice maintained the crystallization pattern of the higher altitude. It may be time to stop debating IF water has a memory but instead debate how it takes place, how to optimize it, how to reduce or erase it, and what uses it may have in medicine and in society. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

There are many other examples of water exhibiting hysteresis. Water does have memory, it's not possible to doubt it based on the uncontrovertable facts. What kind of memory we are talking about is still not clear, however. What in your opinion is a good V RS defining water memory for the purposes of this article? —Whig (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If either of you can find scientifically V & RS that clearly document your claims above (I'm not referring to Bridgman's actual findings), then they might be useful here at Wikipedia. Otherwise this is homeopathic speculation and OR. Making the jump from Bridgman to homeopathy or water memory is homeopathic OR. (I suspect he would have ridiculed both.) We might be able to document that such homeopathic opinions exist, and might, under the right conditions, even cite them to document the existence of such opinions. OTOH, while personal opinions are often fine on talk pages, we can't use them in articles. -- Fyslee / talk 07:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also note that this article is about the concept called "water memory" as pursued by Jacques Benveniste and his supporters, not any property of water that might show some kind of "memory". There should be no debate on the articles of wikipedia, only the facts presented as they are known. This is not the place for the discussion suggested by Dana, and your example is unfortunately irrelevant to this article, and is OR. Perhaps to avoid confusion the article should be renamed "Benveniste's water memory", or something along those lines. It no doubt fulfils the notability criteria all on it's own, which is why it has its own article --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr88, is that necessarily the case (regarding Benveniste)? Maybe this is mentioned above, but I was under the impression that the concept of water memory predated the Benveniste fiasco. Also, is there any legitimate reason for limiting this to Benveniste? If not, then Benveniste should just be a section in this article about the whole concept. -- Fyslee / talk 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is, although I don't have any refs to hand. If someone can provide V and RS either way that would be great. --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

What OR are you talking about, Fyslee? Dana brought up a V and RS and I have provided the example of Bénard cells several times as a demonstration that water exhibits memory under some conditions. It's not original research. —Whig (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The OR is "IF water has a memory but instead debate how it takes place, how to optimize it, how to reduce or erase it, and what uses it may have in medicine and in society". Wikipedia is not the place for this, and as it hasn't happened yet we can't add it either. Re the "memory" of Bénard cells, I have challenged this on that page as it it unreferenced. In fact the whole page lacks sources. --DrEightyEight (talk) 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that article needs sources. I think you could look at some other sources yourself and confirm that the article is factually very good. It's a good thing that you've given it some attention. —Whig (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Take it as correct for now, however, that when water is exposed to a temperature gradient it can exhibit hysteresis. Succussion is a pressure gradient rather than a temperature gradient so it is different (although temperature and pressure are not unrelated). We do need to describe succussion in this article however if we're going to discuss homeopathy here, and if the article is water memory and not just Water memory as the concept is used in discussions about homeopathy then Bénard cells should be briefly discussed and linked as well. —Whig (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be limited the work or ideas of Jacques Benveniste, just as an article on homeopathy should not be limited to the work or ideas of Samuel Hahnemann. Bridgman's work is not OR. It is V and RS (without question). If you want a 3rd party to further strengthen this reference, see: James Stephenson, Field Pharmacology, An Historical Review. Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, January-February 1964:5-9. Dana Ullman ^Talk 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was your comment and its content, that I quoted, that I was calling OR. --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Dana (and Whig), no one has claimed that "Bridgman's work is ~~not~~ OR." I clearly wrote above that "(I'm not referring to Bridgman's actual findings)." Dr88 is correct in his analysis. We were both referring to your own additional comments as being OR, and any claimed connection between his work and homeopathy would be WP:OR and WP:SYN. Unless your added claims are documented in V & RS, they are just your undocumented claims and beliefs, which means that even you cannot be absolutely certain that they are true. They are beliefs until documented to be truly factual. Beliefs regarding scientifically testable matters that are asserted as absolute fact when documentation is lacking qualify by definition as pseudoscience. OTOH, when real scientists are dealing with such matters, they qualify their statements as "possibilities", "hypotheses", "beliefs", "hopes", "wishful thinking", etc., but not as "facts" or "true". -- Fyslee / talk 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mr. Ullman, but you have to actually document that these are called Water memory, and given that the term was created in response to Benveniste's attempt to prove homeopathy (see cites above), you'll probably have a difficult time of that. Vanished User ^talk 19:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it is apparently correct that this term is connected with Benveniste and homeopathy, they should be the major subject matter in this article. If things unconnected with Benveniste and/or homeopathy somehow qualify for the term (as proven from V & RS), then a separate and minor section could be added. -- Fyslee / talk 04:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridgman's work has been cited in homeopathic journals since the 1960s and in homeopathic books since the 1970s. I will be referenced these sources shortly because they represent some of the earliest thinking amongst homeopaths and the memory of water. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Just in case there was any confusion, "The Physics of High Pressure" is a quality reference (though of mainly historical interest today), and Bridgman does not indulge in mystical speculation therein. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Bridgman was certainly an exceptionally gifted scientist. I do not believe that anyone is suggesting otherwise or that he ever indulged in mystical speculation. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have placed the POV tag on the article because of the unresolved disputes already discussed on this page. Someone has placed a Pseudoscience label on this article when some kind of water memory is a demonstrated fact in several contexts, and the description of water memory used for this article has nothing to do with homeopathy, which it purports then to debunk as a straw man. —Whig (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What disputes are unresolved? I see no evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read the section above entitled LEAD. —Whig (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like all the disputes are resolved to me. Perhaps you can explain what is unresolved. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

How about a V RS definition of water memory? —Whig (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Already found in the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? What's the definition? This is what the LEAD says, Water memory is a controversial concept, mainly used to explain homeopathy, which holds that water is capable of retaining a "memory" of particles once dissolved in it, even after being diluted so much that the chance of even one molecule remaining in a typical homeopathic drug dose is minuscule. There is no mention of succussion, this has nothing to do with homeopathy. And whose definition is this? —Whig (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Benveniste's original article specifically says succussion is required for the effect to work, and we explain this promptly in the article proper. All the details don't have to appear in the summary, particularly as it's only mentioned by Benveniste late in his article. Vanished User ^talk 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The article dismissively states in the middle of a paragraph, The effect supposedly only worked when the solution was shaken violently. Is this what you refer to when you say that we explain succussion in the article proper? Other issues aside, we really do have to explain the details of the claim in the LEAD sufficient that we do not misrepresent the claim, which we presently do. —Whig (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit pedantic, but I'll try to work it in. Vanished User ^talk 07:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I restored a few words that were inadvertently and unnecessarily deleted. It is self-evident that 100% of the molecules of the active ingredient are still contained in the total amount of diluted water, but we are always referring to the single dose when stating that there are likely no molecules left. That's an important qualification.

As far as mentioning succussion in the lead, that shouldn't be necessary as that is implied by the statement that it is a homeopathic preparation that is being discussed. It can be mentioned in the body of the article, but a simple wikilink to the homeopathy article leads to that information, so even that isn't necessary. It's a given. This is indeed pedantic. -- Fyslee / talk 07:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Friends, I do not see how Whig is being pedantic (if you mean the negative connotation of this word). Succussion or vigorous shaking is an integral part of how the "memory of water" is influenced...and thanx, Flyslee for acknowledging this oversight and dealing with it.

What I find missing from this article is reference to the work of Rustum Roy, professor of material sciences at Penn State University. He prefers to use the term "the structure of water." [Roy, R., Tiller, W. A., Bell, I., and Hoover, M. R. The Structure of Liquid Water: Novel Insights from Materials Research; Potential Relevance to Homeopathy, Materials Research Innovations, December 2005, 9(4):577–608. http://www.rustumroy.com/Roy_Structure%20of%20Water.pdf] Roy is RS. A 3rd party source is this article from the New Scientist.[6] Please note that this article doesn't just talk about Roy's work but also that of Garczarek and Gerwert, the work of Fuxreiter, the work of Franks, and the very important (IMO) work of Martin Chaplin. The lack of reference to the significant writings of Chaplin is a major oversight.[7] Dana Ullman ^Talk 17:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No Dana, succussion (or vigorous shaking) is an integral part of how homeopathy is claimed to work, but this does not necessarily mean that it is essential to "water memory". It wasn't added until a good V and RS ref was found for it (in relation to "water memory" that is). Rustum Roy's so-called work (his recent work relating to homeopathy, cf. his awful Guardian piece that Dana commented on) is awful, and has been described as such by other experts. Rustum's publications in peer-reviewed journals etc are a RS, but he isn't. Chaplin is also questionable and highly dubious. We'd have the same problems linking to Chaplin's website as we do to yours. Also, isn't this page solely about "water memory" as described in the Nature paper, and the only scientific concept thus given this name that I am aware of? The article at the moment reads as one only about that topic, and that topic clearly warrants its own article. If you want to start a more general page about nebulous concepts that could be interpreted as a memory in some poorly defined way, feel free --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article is only about a single Nature article. If so this article is on a non-notable subject and ought to simply be put up for AfD. —Whig (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

90% of the New Scientist article is a good, non-controversial article on water's role in quantum biology. However, a short, non-descript mention of Rustrum Roy claiming these discoveries prove homeopathy in some vague way at the end is not really enough to allow us to declare a self-published source notable, or to declare that quantum biology descriptions of water are the same as water memory. Vanished User ^talk 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Vanished, You're cherry-picking now. You're accepting some of the New Scientist article but not all of it. I'm also not clear why Rustum Roy is not a RS. He is a professor emeritus at Penn State; he has over 15 contributions to NATURE; the paper to which I referenced from him was co-authors by William Tiller, PhD, former chair of material sciences at Stanford...and there is more evidence for affirming Roy as RS. As for Martin Chaplin's site, he is a professor of applied sciences. His site has over 1,300 references to the scientific literature, and he is one of the world's experts on water. See also his article in Nature Reviews/Molecular Cell Biology, November 2006, "Do we underestimate the importance of water in cell biology" 861-866. He is a RS. Finally, are you suggesting that you are the artibrator of the definition of what this article is? Are you saying that it is only on Benveniste's definition as though you are the sole decider here? If so, you must remove its link from homeopathy and its link from the article about Dana Ullman(neither the BBC nor ABC repeated the Benveniste study). Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

People are not RS; their publications may be. Personal websites are very unlikely to be RS in such a contentious area. I wont respond to your accusations about me --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My point was that 90% of that article is on a completely different subject, and the mention of Rustrum Roy's ideas are clearly delineated as being on a different subject, which is then described for the last section of the article. This article does not give us licence to describe anything that comes before Rustrum Roy's work as related to Water memory, and does not make a self-published source count as a reliable, verifiable, notable source, just because it mentions the author. If you would like to mention specific quotes from the section of the New Scientist article from the point where it introduces Rustrum Roy's work onwards, perhaps that might be usable, though it would be useful if you could show additional secondary sources, as, well, New Scientist is fairly well-known for including regular controversial, speculative, or sensationalist articles (choose your favourite adjective!). [8] is quoted in our article on New Scientist, for instance. Vanished User ^talk 19:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We might want to take further conversation about this article to WP:RSN. —Whig (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Info box

Pseudoscientific Concepts
Claims:
Some unknown process allows water to retain properties of a substance diluted beyond the point of any solute molecules being left in the solution.
Related scientific disciplines:
Homeopathy, Chemistry
Year proposed:	1988
Original proponents:	Jacques Benveniste
Current proponents:	Madeleine Ennis, Brian Josephson, various homeopaths

Other than it being a bit ugly, what is the problem with the pseudoscience information box? Please justify it's removal. I see no misrepresentation in what it states, and this is a clear case of pseudoscience so there's no POV. --DrEightyEight (talk) 20:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I never liked them much anyway - they aren't very good infoboxes, and have a tendency for the "claims" section to look like it's being presented as fact, due to being called "core tenets". Anyway, surely the disciplines are Homeopathy, not Chemistry and Medicine. Vanished User ^talk 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine, it is ugly. I made a few changes, but it's still ugly. Does Ennis still support this theory too? --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody supports the theory advanced in the claims. Nobody. —Whig (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're being pedantic about succussion again, aren't you? Vanished User ^talk 22:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy isn't pedantic. It is inaccurate to omit. Moreover the entirety of the "Core tenets" seems to be based on nothing but misapprehension, it is not chemical properties at all that anyone thinks are retained but certain physical properties. And finally we cannot call it Pseudoscience when we're talking about an actual scientific experiment. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Whig. Why don't you place another version of the info box here with what you'd like it to say, or just write it out in a comment. Again though, I don't think it should be included --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, because it isn't pseudoscience, it shouldn't have a pseudoscience infobox. —Whig (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Confusion in "More Recent Experiments"

The 2000 study by the Dept of Defense had nothing to do with the NATURE studies, and this is not clear at all here. Further, this transmission research has nothing to do with the "memory of water." It is interesting how some people here want the "memory of water" article to only refer to Benveniste's research, and yet, they feel compelled to bring in other research that has nothing to do with this subject. If you want this article to be on Benveniste's research, he had a very broad body of research that is not at all a part of this article. Dana Ullman ^Talk 02:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If this article is really only about Benveniste's research and not about other kinds of water memory like Bénard cells or other demonstrations of the hysteresis effects which are undoubtedly present when water is subjected to external energies, then this article should simply be merged with Jacques Benveniste. —Whig (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Like the Sokal affair, this topic is notable enough and interesting enough to warrent it's own article. Rename it to "Water memory (Benveniste)" if it upsets you, as water memory is the name used to describe this whole affair --DrEightyEight (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of category removal

There is no indication that the ideology of Water memory is pseudoscience, therefore, I am removing the category until it can reasonably be proven that it is. Also, the category of pseudo-science should not be added unless the article itself discusses how water memory relates to pseudo-science.

Please don't revert the removal of unsourced material and categories without providing adequate sources; it is not constructive.

BE TA 14:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It is clearly Verifiable that water memory as promoted by the disgraced scientist Jacques Benveniste is pseudoscience, and this article is primarily about his topic and should be in that category. It would have been better if you'd brought your concerns to the talk page rather than making a controversial edit against consensus after you had been made aware of the homeopathy probation --DrEightyEight (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious; where, in this article, is there any mention of how this topic relates to pseudo-science. For example: Homeopathy has four ([9][10][11][12]) references linking homeopathy with pseudoscience. "It is clearly Verifiable" <- This cannot be verified without a source that directly and explicitly supports your claim. BE TA 18:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what's going on in homeopathy. This is clearly pseudoscience (a google search will provide you with a million refs, or just look at Ben Goldacre's Badscience column in the guardian). If you want refs added to the page then that is no problem too. --DrEightyEight (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

View froman Uninvolved Spectator

I have been having a look at this article, at some of the references discussed (including the special issue of Homeopathy and the letters in response), and some of the links. I have decided to offer some thoughts, for what it is worth, for others to consider:

Article Title: There has been a considerable amount of literature discussion of issues that might be broadly considered 'water memory', yet most are missing from this article. Either the article should be considerably expanded (and the homeopathy discussion made a sub-section), or the article should be named something like 'water memory (homeopathy)' and a disambiguation page created to link to other article(s) which deal with topics which could be called water memory in the broad sense. Note, I am not suggesting a POV fork - having one article noting science and 50 fs memory, and another just presenting the homeopathic perspective. However, effects associated with ionic impurities or silica from glass surfaces (for example) have not been connected with the influence of homepathic preparations to (say) 30C, at least as far as I am aware.

Assuming an article remains looking just at water memory in the homeopathic context.

Lead: The lead of the present article needs re-writing. Whig is right about this - a reasonable definition of water memory from a homeopathic perspective is needed. Something that takes in the succussion treatment, and the notions of vital energy. Noting that such an idea is scientifically controversial can follow, but at least a definition sdhould preceed it. To highlight (with an exaggeration), no one would say that "The heliocentric model of the solar system is the religiously-controversial concept, mainly used to explain astrophysics, which holds that the Earth is capable of "moving" around the sun ..." was a NPOV formulation.
The Homeopathy / Water Memory Link: Whilst water memory is used by homeopaths to explain how their preparations function, it should be made clear that the concepts are distinct. Research demonstrating that water memory is a real effect would not 'prove' homeopathy is valid. Similarly, evidence debunking water memory does not 'disprove' homeopathy. Judgements on the efficacy of homeopathy must come from research demonstrating its connection with improved patient outcomes - and not on anything else. If the evidence shows homepathic treatments are effective but that water memory is untenable, that merely means that water memory is an inadequate theoretical basis for rationalising the observed efficacy. It does not mean that the observed efficacy is wrong.
Poitevin's characterisation of Benveniste: The lead indicates that Benveniste sought to "prove" one of the basic foundations of homeopathy. From a scientific perspective, this is really troubling. Evidence can be offered in support of a position, but that isn't the same as proof. We have a theory of evolution for which there is a massive amount of supporting evidence, but scientists would not deny the possibility of a better theory emerging later, or that experimental results could not invalidate the theory. Given present knowledge, such a possibility seems remote indeed - but a good scientist recognises this doesn't mean it is impossible. Simiarly, evidence may be presented for the efficacy of a homeopathic remedy, but that isn't a 'proof' of homeopathy. Like mainstream medicine, issues around efficacy of homeopathic treatments revolve around evidence in individual cases, not on the quality of the theoretical discussions of mode of action. Setting out to "prove" in this case sounds unlike a scientific approach - rather than to offer empirical evidence for, for example - and I checked, "prove" is indeed the word used by Poitevin.
Histeresis: has been mentioned on this page several times. The histeresis article needs work, and the use of "memory" in its lead is both a comparatively recent addition (IP editor, a few months ago) and a questionable use of the term. The second use in that article is talking about probability and dice having no memory, so seems strange in an article about (principallly) histeresis in materials science and physics.
By the way, the present article seems more of a discussion of the controversy around the biological efficacy of antilgE at high dilution, rather than about water memory as a hypothesised explanation for homeopathic treatments being efficacious.

OK, that's enough from me. Hopefully this outside view is useful. :) EdChem (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed addition by Martin Chaplin

I have removed the following addition made by an anon IP. I think the wording needs improving and we can discuss this here first:

"A number of papers concerning aspects of the memory of water have been published in a special issue of the Journal ‘Homeopathy’ in 2007. In the main they show how the properties of water may be unexpectedly changed by simple processing and that such changes may remain for extensive periods of time. The changes in the aqueous properties seem, at least partly, down to the inherent unusualness of water.^[1]"

Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk)

I have notified 86.134.27.61 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) of the article probation and placed them on 1RR going forward. Let's err on the side of explaining policy to them and encouraging discussion here, but if there is further edit-warring then I will impose a short block. MastCell ^Talk 19:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anon IP addition

It is clear that there are rules that I was not aware of when I made my edit (86.134.27.61). I assumed that making an unbiased correct addition, without changing previous text and relevant and important to the topic was sufficient. I now find that I must appease people as well or else they simply delete my addition and complain when I reassert it. If you find my addition biased or untrue or irrelevant or unimportant then feel free to remove it, but pay me the courtesy of explaining your reasons in words I might understand.Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to wikipedia. You might want to make yourself aware of several important WP policies if you're going to edit articles related to homeopathy, like this one. For example, WP:COI is an important one as you added a reference to a journal issue for which, I believe, you were the editor. Also, questions as to Homeopathy's (the journal) value as a reliable source (for anything other than the views of homeopaths) have been raised, per WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a place for personal opinions, or things people have put on websites or blogs etc, but for verifiable (WP:V) facts. Thanks for saying hi, and feel free to justify your edit on this page and we can attempt to work towards consensus. --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly I declare any conflict of interest by giving my name, which others do not. I believe that the full issue of 'Homeopathy' on 'Memory of Water' is relevant to a Wikipedia article on 'Memory of Water'. The issue also included a paper by a 'Memory of water' sceptic, and I am not a Homeopath nor was my paper written with any deliberate bias but as an article by someone who studies water and wishes to understand more. The bias in the Wikipedia article is clear and will be made worse by ignoring facts. In my short addition I only state facts that someone looking at it may believe relevant. I do not believe they are disputable. I am not looking at self-promotion but the Wikipedia article at the moment is lacking so much in scope that I felt it needed some balance.Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's all well and good. Please bring your comments here first and don't edit the main page. Thanks --DrEightyEight (talk)

How about allowing me to put it back up then?Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No you shouldn't edit the article space of this page due to a CoI. Wait for consensus to be established in the discussion above, to which you can add any justification you wish (bearing in mind WP policies). --DrEightyEight (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. This is what I wished to add. I have no idea who, when or what decides 'consensus'. If you do not want help in editing your pages then you should make that clear from the start and I could save my efforts for elsewhere.

This isn't my page, and anyone can edit it within WP policy. Unfortunately this falls foul of WP:COI so you need to bring it here for discussion with other editors. This may take time but I'm sure people will respond soon. Are you aware of the journal club Ben Goldacre started with regards this issue of Homeopathy? --DrEightyEight (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevant text to keep in mind, "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies. Excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion." —Whig (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes indeed, thanks Whig. I don't mean to appear like I don't want you to be here - wikipedia needs all the help it can get (especially from scientists like us). I'm careful not to edit pages directly related to my main research, as it is hard to keep NPOV (especially since I'm named on a few pages). Cheers, --DrEightyEight (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It should also be noted that NPOV does not mean having no point of view. It does mean that all significant views should be represented with reliable sources that are verifiable. —Whig (talk) 23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, it is a pleasure and an honor that Martin Chaplin is adding his expertise to this article, and I tend to have greater respect for those editors who choose to be transparent. To clarify, just because Dr88 says that the journal, Homeopathy (published by Elsevier) isn't RS does NOT make it non-RS. This is a peer-review journal, and even a recent article published in NATURE considered providing a review of the July 2007 issue for which Martin Chaplin served as the guest editor. There is RS 3rd party recognition of this issue, confirming that this issue and this journal is notable. As for COI, please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a person able to reference an article that they have written in a peer-review journal but not refer people to one's own website that is not a peer-review source? Dana Ullman ^Talk 00:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Dana (and Martin), the journal Homeopathy is an RS for Homeopathy claims. It is not an RS for proving water memory. If you want it to be evaluated by the community, take it to the RS noticeboard, but they will give you a similar answer, I'm sure. Peer-review does not automatically qualify something as an RS. The sooner you realize that, the easier it will be for you to edit effectively. Baegis (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for including the Homeopathy issue, briefly summarising the various ideas, so long as speculation is not treated as evidence of fact. Vanished User ^talk 09:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vanished that the Homeopathy issue should be referenced. It is a peer-reviewed journal that is published by Elsevier, and it quite informative for those who take the time to read it without prejudice. Arion 3x3 (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

We can write about the subject without bias, and without resolving the matter proven or absurd. At least that is what we are supposed to do, as editors. This is not the place where things are proven or disproven. The subject of this article is the subject matter of the Homeopathy issue and it should be considered a V and RS for the purpose of expressing what some theories and criticisms are, and other criticisms and support from other V and RS should also be used to include all significant views. We will need to do some careful balancing but we should be able to show all sides in a neutral way that lets the reader understand the controversy. —Whig (talk) 04:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Your summary of hox you plan to edit this article is biased. The matter as far as Benveniste's "water memory" (the only concept so called) is resolved. It is not the job of wikipedia editors to introduce uncertainty where none exists. If you want to write about the "structure of water", start an article about it. I agree that Homeopathy is a V and RS for the opinions of homeopaths, but not for science. --DrEightyEight (talk) 07:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr88 is wrong (again). The last paragraph in the current page concerns a different 'water memory' effect, and currently is "Research published in 2005 on hydrogen bond network dynamics in water measured that "liquid water essentially loses the memory of persistent correlations in its structure" within 50 femtoseconds.[20]" This work has nothing to do with Beveniste-related material. It only concerns the 'memory' of single water molecules in liquid and is not related to larger scale effects, which may be thought by many to be the basis of 'Memory of Water'. Unfortunately that paragraph rather gives the wrong impression, being so far out of line with the rest of the current article, which is perhaps what Nature intended when they gave it the headline they did. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, please read WP:AGF. Edits to this page must be discussed first due to the probation. If you have a good source for your statements, add them here and propose your changes to the article --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

My source for my statement is the paper itself. The debate over what this page is about should be sorted before such bits may possibly be edited. I feel the article is far too narrow at present as the 'memory of water' concept has moved on (and separated somewhat from 'homeopathy') since first promulgated. Martin Chaplin (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps this article should be renamed "Water memory (Benveniste)", and a seperate article on the "Sructure of water" started, with a disambiguation page here. --RDOlivaw (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

'Structure of water' is a much wider topic (and probably is worthy of its own page) but one that may exclude the recent 'memory of water' debate altogether (which includes the importance of adventitious solutes etc). I suggest that the current page be simply expanded such that the Benveniste stuff is also given as part of the history of the term/phenomena. Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "Water memory (Benveniste)" (as this is impotant and notable, à la the Sokal affair), a "Structure of water" page, and then a page on the "memory of water" (but with a better, scientific title, perhaps). They could be sufficiently interlinked, and it would keep the Benveniste stuff away from the real science --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it correct in your view that Bénard cells demonstrate that water exhibits some kind of metamolecular memory when subjected to a sufficient temperature gradient? If so, does succussion represent a pressure gradient and do you feel this is relevant to the present article? —Whig (talk) 09:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant if you can find a V and Reliable Source saying all this, and that this is related to "water memory". --RDOlivaw (talk) 11:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bénard cells do not seem to show a special property of water and I do not see the effect as showing a special 'memory' any more than a wave crossing an ocean shows memory. Succussion does involve pressure changes of about 5-100 MPa (some believe it is higher) and such pressures do cause effects in the water (e.g. they can dislodge nanoparticles of silica material from the glassware and cause changes in peroxide and gas present). Succussion is definitely relevant to the present article but I do not believe Bénard cells are. They may well be usefully linked from the article however. Martin Chaplin (talk) 11:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I bet such link will get deleted eventually, as it had before. I, personally, see no relation at all between a form of convective flow in (all) liquids and this mythical property of water. --Cubbi (talk) 14:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be consensus for adding back my original edit so I plan to put it back up together with a link to the Journal Club established at http://www.badscience.net/?p=490 a citation for the original Homeopathy issue on 'Memory of Water' (July 2007) and a citation for the Homeopathy issue that contains 'Comments' and 'Replies' to that issue (Jan 2008) unless a reverse consensus arises. Note that my paper, that I cite, contains 48 references to peer-reviewed papers concerning 'Memory of Water'. I believe it gives an unbiased overview of current thinking concerning 'Memory of Water'; it certainly overviews the current state of play. I will not cite the relevant page on my web-site but I do believe that that also is a RS as many of my other pages have been cited by within Wikipedia and in the published peer-reviewed literature. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Link

I am surprised there are no refs here to Rustrum Roy's work such as[13] why are such absent? thanks Peter morrell 14:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The external link that you suggested is a good one, especially since it provides a debate on various points of view, and is not one-sided. Arion 3x3 (talk) 14:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A little over 2 hours after I added this external link - it was reverted with the comment "Needs to be linked from inside text". I thought the time for edit warring was ended, and a new era of cooperative editing to improve Wikepedia was to have begun. Arion 3x3 (talk) 18:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. One edit (in 5 days) hardly counts as edit-warring --DrEightyEight (talk)

I have added back JUST the link so hopefully that will be OK. It is a relevant link and the removal is not really justified by not being mentioned in the body text. Many, many wiki articles have ext. links that are not even mentioned in the article itself. So the reason given does not seem sufficient to delete the link. I agree compromise should prevail. It is not a contentious link. thank you Peter morrell 18:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This looks quit like a blog - does it meet the criteria for external links? It would also be better if it had something to do directly with something in the text --DrEightyEight (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the blog link, which contains only a small part of Roy's presentation and omitted all of the criticism, with a more appropriate reference:

Novella S, Roy R, Marcus D, Bell IR, Davidovitch N, Saine A (2008). "A Debate: Homeopathy-Quackery or a Key to the Future of Medicine?". J Altern Complement Med. doi:10.1089/acm.2007.0770. PMID 18199017. — Scientizzle 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
- It was also reproduced here: Gold PW, Novella S, Roy R, et al (2008). "Homeopathy--quackery or a key to the future of medicine?". Homeopathy 97 (1): 28–33. doi:10.1016/j.homp.2007.12.002. PMID 18194763.

I have no problem with the reference that User:Scientizzle has added, though it should be in addition to, not in place of, reference to Roy's published articles or a good 3rd party source, such as the New Scientist's article "The Quantum Elixir" [14]Dana Ullman ^Talk 22:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

discredited

Just explain how it is discredited and by whom, & when and add a RS cite and then it will be OK. You can't just say it is discredited with no justification. thanks Peter morrell —Preceding comment was added at 20:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Ennis and Multicentre Replication Reference

Is there any reason why this more recent Ennis reference has been ignored? [15] Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How do we report unexplained phenomena: We are however unable to explain our findings and are reporting them to encourage others to investigate this phenomenon. Interesting. —Whig (talk) 05:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Text in the Article, "Nature published a number of follow-up experiments that failed to find any effect in 1993,[15] " gives the wrong message. This paper did not support Benveniste but did indeed find some unexpected effects. Thus it ignored some data as including 'a source of error for which we cannot account'. Also the statistical report on which it was based (J. Burridge, A repeat of the 'Benveniste' experiment: Statistical analysis, Research Report 100, Department of Statistical Science, University College London, England; available at http://www.weirdtech.com/sci/burridge.zip )stated 'One interpretation is that there are, after all, differences between the treatments...'. I would like to suggest that this sentence be replaced by "Nature published a paper describing number of follow-up experiments that failed to find a similar effect in 1993,[15]", but will leave the argument open for a while for feedback.

I also believe that Ennis reference should be included for completeness. Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

"More Recent Experiments" section

The reference to the digital medicine/transmission research conducted by Jonas and funded by the Dept of Defense has nothing to do with the "memory of water" issue. This study is already discussed at Jacques Benveniste. Unless someone has strong reasons that it should be here, I plan to delete it. Dana Ullman ^Talk 01:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You may well have a point. However, this topic involves the first three paragraphs in the 'More recent experiments' section. They do link in both with the 'Memory of water' topic and Jacques Benveniste. Initially a way forward would be perhaps to give them a separate headed paragraph here; e.g. 'Digital biology'. This would allow us to see how well they fit into either topic and the consequences of any move to Jacques Benveniste or deletion. This area of Benveniste's work does lack any support from outside his team and its data and so it is easily criticized by all and sundry. It does not seem to me to be likely to be pure invention, but this is scant support for it. Martin Chaplin (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the appropriate edits may be made to the Jacques Benveniste article and if proper to mention here it could be briefly done and linked. —Whig (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one suggests otherwise, I will delete the descriptions of and references to the digital medicine/transmission research. Please note that it is already mentioned in the bio of Jacques Benveniste. DanaUllman^Talk 14:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Although Benveniste's digital medicine has little outside support and perhaps even may reflect badly on both memory of water and homeopathy topics, it was directly linked to Benveniste's memory of water work We perhaps should retain a brief direct to there. Also there is not much concerning this on Benveniste's page, so if the delete is decided I will move the deleted section to that page after posting on their talk page. Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how Benveniste's digital medicine is linked to his memory of water work except through HIM. Unless you have a notable and RS reference for this connection, a deletion here is in order. In any case, this info has a place on his bio page, not on the memory of water page. By the way, it is a pleasure to see that you and I don't agree on everything, though we can and will still be gentlemanly to each other. DanaUllman^Talk 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe Benveniste considered the transmission of biological information via some molecular organization going on in the water, which he associated with the possibility that it would give out a signal that could be recorded and played back. As I wrote, this has close to zero support apart from his team, although I would not be surprised if there was not something unexpected still to be found in this work. I really do not feel strongly about this but reiterate my previous comments. There is a paper describing some of this at: Thomas, Y, Kahhak, L. and Aissa, J., The physical nature of the biological signal., a puzzling phenomenon: the critical contribution of Jacques Benveniste, Water and the Cell, G. Pollack et al (eds.) Springer (2006)pp 325-340. Martin Chaplin (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversy about BBC's Horizon Study

Almost two years AFTER the Horizon study was aired, Professor Madeleine Ennis was shown the specific protocol that the BBC used, and she was shocked to notice that this was not a "repeat" of her work as the BBC had declared. Not only was this study that was developed and conducted by Wayne Turnbull a different experiment, Ennis notes serious flaws that would have led to the basophils being killed by the inclusion of a chemical that should not have been a part of the experiment. For the record, Ennis letter is posted at my website here: [16]. A copy of the protocol used is here: [17]. A further analysis of the BBC's study and the 20/20 tv program's same study is here: [18]. Please note that I cannot post this information or these links to the article here due to WP:COI(this website is mine). However, I shoula also note that the British Medical Journal (BMJ) acknowledged this website as "website of the week" here: [19] -- see page 518. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice four websites (other than BMJ itself) mentioned, without any single one of them named as Website of the week. Two of them are skeptical, anti-quackery websites that are strongly skeptical of homeopathy. -- Fyslee / talk 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If there is no objection I can post this, as I think it is important that Ennis criticism be 'included. —Whig (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence clearly suggests that the Horizon program did not repeat the work exactly as it said it did and that the differences were significant. I agree that the criticisms should be posted as a caution against too much reliance on its results. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I should let Martin Chaplin make the edit given his greater expertise in this area, unless there are objections to this. —Whig (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

How would you propose to do this without any independent secondary or tertiary sources? Do you have them? This should be a very notable matter, and if it truly is notable enough for inclusion, it should be possible to find multiple sources of this type. Without them you are left with nothing. -- Fyslee / talk 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence of the Ennis email and the protocol(s) seem pretty solid to me. The www.homeopathic.com website material brings together much information. All together, I see a strong case for serious criticism of the TV programs without any alternative view. Does anyone know of any reference to anywhere that supports the programmes? If not then the criticisms should at least be mentioned together with links to the evidence. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the policies on sourcing here, but Dana's site is not considered a V & RS. It can only be cited in an article about himself. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One other source that reported about the 20/20 study as "junk science" is at: [20]. See the report about "Homeopathy gets 'Stosseled'". The source, the Natural Foods Merchandiser, is a leading monthly magazine for the natural products/natural medicine industry in the U.S. Another source is the "Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients" at [ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0ISW/is_252/ai_n6160487]. Dana Ullman ^Talk 23:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

These articles were written by you, is that correct? —Whig (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No and possibly...I didn't write the article for the Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients; it was written by one of their editors. The other article says that it was written by me, but I am not 100% certain about this. I hope to find out with more certainty within 24-48 hours. As for another 3rd party source, there is also Martin Chaplin's website. Dana Ullman ^Talk 04:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the case may be, it looks like you are again attempting to promote your own writings and recommending that they be used as sources here. Be very careful about self-promotion as that is forbidden here. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee...please note that the section in which my website (http://www.homeopathic.com] is mentioned is called "website of the week." Perhaps it is more accurate to say that this website was one of four highlighted in an article called "website of the week." This reference provides a certain degree of WP:notability. Dana Ullman ^Talk 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

At least it's mentioned. -- Fyslee / talk 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As a scientist, I am not bothered where the evidence is posted. If it is evidence, then it should be taken into account. Is there any dispute as to the veracity of the hard evidence concerning this point posted at the www.homeopathic.com website? I have not heard any doubts about it expressed. If not, then why does it matter where it is posted? Martin Chaplin (talk) 07:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The veracity of the information is not the point here. It has to be notable and posted on a verifiable and reliable source. Note that when Wikipedia uses the terms "verifiable" and "reliable source" in this connection, they are not used in the usual sense, but have a special meaning here, so please familiarize yourself with those policy pages. This is especially important since repeated additions of any website deemed unreliable can in some cases end up with the website being blacklisted, in which case its future deletion will be turned over to a bot, which will blindly delete it on sight in the future. I doubt that is a danger here as long as it isn't used without being pretty certain it qualifies. I'd follow the advice given below by Whig and ask on WP:RSN. -- Fyslee / talk 04:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems fine to me. If anyone has doubts we can ask on WP:RSN whether this is acceptable. —Whig (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:COI, and I will never insert a link to one of my own articles in a wikipedia article. However, it is not COI when I refer to it as a possible resource in the Talk pages (I'm only around 99% certain of this; if others have a different understanding, please let me know). Others are welcome to judge whether they consider my writings worthy of inclusion in an article. Dana Ullman ^Talk 19:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am saddened that Wiki seems relatively uninterested in the truth only that whatever is contained is verifiable; "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". However, even with the above implied criticism of the publication source (if not its contents, I believe it is quite correct to change the sentence on this page to:

"The challenge ended with the Horizon team failing to prove the memory of water.[20] There is some controversy, however, over whether the original methodology was followed closely enough." (we all seem to be agreed on this) It would be useful here to reference the protocol at http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,130 so that people can compare it for themselves with the Ennis paper(s). Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, you are providing pretty good evidence that you are deliberately planning to ignore and violate Wikipedia's policies on this point. Such actions can get you banned and the source blacklisted. Please stop. Wikipedia is not to be used as a private website, soapbox, or for advocacy. Believe me, you real life reputation can get seriously damaged if you start screwing around with violations of Wikipedia policy. You are a known person and this project is constantly watched by all kinds of people, including weirdos, cyberstalkers, news media, and employers. Keep your hands clean and you will always be able to defend your actions here. Mess with policies and you can become the subject of very public Arbitration here, and that's without the benefit of a lawyer. It's no fun. Please reconsider. Your knowledge and experience shouldn't get blocked from here. -- Fyslee / talk 07:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Please AGF. This is a new editor, who is anxious to contribute to the project, frankly in an area that needs more input. I think you are jumping the gun. This is a new editor and it takes some time to understand the WP:CON, WP:V, WP:WEIGHT, WP:RS and other policies and guidelines, let alone the idiosyncratic interpretations of such. I think he needs to be schooled. Anthon01 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01, you are quite right. I know that Martin is new here, and that's why I have warned him a few times and asked him to read the involved polices. You have provided more wikilinks and he would do well to read them. Newbies should always take warnings and advice from more experienced users seriously. I'm sure he can learn this and I'm trying to give him prior warning in order to save him a lot of grief. That would be too bad. He knows a lot and we need people like him here. -- Fyslee / talk 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's old hat to you now, but remember how many times you had to read those policies before they started to stick, let alone make sense to you? Anthon01 (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Very, very, VERY true! That's why it's so important that we help each other with good advice. -- Fyslee / talk 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am searching for consensus and quoting Wikipedia policy, but thanks for looking out for me. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I now believe that direct reference to the Ennis email is probably best not allowed unless Ennis gives her permission. Thus in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova it is stated: In the absence of permission from the author (including of any included prior correspondence) or their lapse into public domain, the contents of private correspondence, including e-mails, should not be posted on-wiki.. Also that putting the methods used by Ennis and Horizon side by side may amount to research. Therefore I have (regretfully) come to the conclusion that the clear differences I have found between the two methods cannot be described on the Water Memory page unless we agree to allow reference to Dana's research given at his website at http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,58. Martin Chaplin (talk) 16:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Double-blind study

In the intro, it claims some double-blind studies have shown it, but it seems from Maddox's description/visit to the lab that proper double-blind procedures were not followed, thus meaning the studies weren't double-blind at all; additionally, the fact that experimenter effect is the explanation for many of the positive results, it seems that the statement that double-blind studies have confirmed it is just wrong. What double-blind studies HAVE actually shown it? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The 'experimenter effect' did not mean it was not double blinded. Maddox only showed that his double-blind experiments did not show a positive effect. I cannot find where Maddox makes the statement concerning 'proper double-blind procedures were not followed'. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The real story of the "Maddox/Nature experiments" is quite fascinating. Benveniste always conducted his experiments in a blind fashion. There was a good reason that he was in charge of a leading lab in INSERM...he was a highly respected allergist and researcher. However, when Maddox and his crew came to do the study, they insisted upon doing the first 3 studies in a non-blind fashion. Benveniste initially objected, but then relented. Although the results were "positive," no one took them seriously. Then, the fourth experiment was conducted in a blind fashion. Benveniste's assistant read the basophil degranation through a microscope without knowledge of whether she was reading the treatment or control groups. What was totally ignored in the drama that ensued was that this FOURTH study found a positive effect from the homeopathic doses (70-75% degranulation at dilutions of 10, 16, 17, 18, and 22). Then, Maddox and crew decided to blind the person doing the pipetting into the testtubes AND the person reading in the microscope. These latter 3 trials had negative results, so the Nature team asserted that the entire experiment was "negative," when in fact, 1 of the 4 blinded experiments was positive. It is important to note that many immunological studies have a 10-40% result and are still considered positive, especially because the placebo controls tend to find no degranulation at all. ALL of this information is in the Nature article (see figure 2 on page 334), and Benveniste's first published response to Maddox and crew highlighted these facts. DanaUllman^Talk 22:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I propose to change 'supposedly' to 'reportedly' before double-blind, but unless there is evidence that the studies were not double-blinded, or were stated not to be double-blinded, I may revert this later to neither. Clearly the innuendo is such that inserting 'supposedly' is not a minor amendment. It is down to the first edit by Titanium Dragon (adding 'supposedly') to get a consensus and give the evidence for the change to 'supposedly'. Martin Chaplin (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Words to avoid 'supposedly' should be removed. I do not see a need for 'reportedly' either, which still suggests some unverified doubt. —Whig (talk) 04:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's go with the fact that 0 (zero) double-blind repetitions of these supposed positive "double-blind" experiments exist. So yes, there are extreme amounts of doubt for these actually being double-blind experiments. Reportedly is fine by me. Baegis (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a V RS source that claims this or is this just your opinion that they were not double-blinded in spite of claiming to be? —Whig (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your 'fact'. Also very few repetitions have been attempted; certainly fewer than the original series. I believe that evidence is required; if even Maddox did not say they were not double blinded then who has? Martin Chaplin (talk) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If water memory were proven to be true, it would be shouted from high on the mountain tops, because it would be nothing less than earth shattering. If memory serves, I have yet to see this actually happen. Since you work extensively in this area, I must ask if your colleagues are discussing this "proven fact" of water memory? Regardless, doesn't it seem odd that so few repetitions have been undertaken? Could it be that the originals have been shown to be little more than error filled experiments and any proper experiment has yet to yield a result? So yes, then there is obviously a problem with the experiment, as described. Fouling up the double-blind procedure is one way (maybe the most common) to get results not typical of what is expected. Baegis (talk) 07:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, you misunderstand my statement concerning 'fact'. I was referring to the fact you propose not the fact of water memory. Shifting the ground does not help a discussion. As for water memory, I put my still-present position in my paper, which does seem to be the most downloaded paper from Homeopathy recently. What different people mean by water memory clearly differ from one another. My viewpoint here is independent over whether I believe one thing or another, it is solely governed by the evidence and my appreciation of it. I have found that over the years certain people take biased stances on the pro evidence because they start with the idea that it cannot be true (as they do not understand how it could possibly work). For example, Maddox stated his bias before he went to Benveniste. Such people then ignore any effects that disagree with there pre-conceptions, like the authors of the Shang Lancet paper. I try to be fair in my assessment of the evidence, and being fair try to stick to the evidence. Being fair means that whether or not I believe that the data published in Nature that started this controversy proved Benveniste's memory of water hypothesis or not, I believe his data should be treated fairly. In the history of science many studies have initially led to wrong conclusions but that is not necessarily the fault of the data. Also it is always very easy to publish science that everyone agrees fits in well with current thought, but apparently highly dangerous to step outside that box even though that is where (sometimes) truly important scientific discoveries are made. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dana above. It is clear that a double-blinded study was overseen and vouched for by Maddox in Benveniste's Lab that gave a positive effect, therefore I am removing my 'reportedly'. Clearly this experiment should be treated in the text in exactly the same way as Maddox's subsequent three negative runs. At the moment I am stymied by the 1RR rule. Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

LEAD (#2)

The introduction is self-contradictory and confusing. For instance, it says: The term was invented to describe the claims of Benveniste, who sought to prove one of the basic foundations of homeopathy by conducting an experiment to be published "independently of homeopathic interests" in a major journal -- if the experiment was independent of homeopathic interests, what does this have to do with the foundations of homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

He actually meant that it should be published in a mainstream journal that was not thought to be biased towards homeopathic interests, I believe. Any help with the phrasing to put this over better would be gratefully received. Martin Chaplin (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

How about editing simply to : The term was used by Benveniste to illustrate his claims. He sought to prove this one of the basic foundations of homeopathy by conducting an experiment and publishing the results not in the homeopathic press but in a mainstream scientific journal. [4] Martin Chaplin (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Note that I am not happy stating that it is one of the basic foundations of homeopathy as it is not, but this phrase was originally there, and I do not want to change too much. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Martin, as I have said before, wikipedia is lucky to have you as an editor helping to provide accurate information on this article. One of the wiki-policies is to be bold, especially when you have accurate RS and V information. Go for it. I also want to repeat a quote that Whig previously inserted above, under LEAD, because I think that some of this information should be a part of this article:

As stated: "Pure water retains memory of particles once dissolved in it and thus can elicit similar biochemical responses in living organisms to what the original particles would have done."

Is this claim an accurate paraphrase of the theory?

“Such strongly critical or downright sarcastic or ironic stances do not appear entirely justified: the concept of the "memory of water" is no more than a metaphor denoting the hypothesis whereby the physicochemical properties of water can be modified by a solute and remain so for a certain period of time even in the absence of the solute itself. If this were true, biology and medicine would undergo not a revolution, but certainly a significant increase in knowledge and in the related applications. It is not a matter here of postulating an "entity" (memory) which may reside in the water, but of studying the physicochemical properties of water itself. In this sense, talking about memory is not so very different from talking about temperature, dielectric constants, viscosity, and other properties.

An example may serve to clarify the concept here: if we take a little water and put it in the freezer, after a certain period of time it will freeze. On removing the water from the freezer, it will be observed that the block of ice, though now exposed to room temperature, will remain a block of ice for some time. Thus, there exists in water a property which enables it to "remember" for a certain amount of time that it has been kept in the freezer. For those who find this example self-evident, we can give another: if we take a tape coated with ferric hydroxide and subject it, as it is running, to a series of differences in potential in precise succession, changes in charge occur on the magnetic substrate; the tape will remember those changes for hundreds of years. It is not the memory of water, in this case, but the memory of iron, which consists in a particular form that the magnetic substrate assumes on the tape.”

—Paolo Bellavite, M.D. and Andrea Signorini, M.D., The Emerging Science of Homeopathy: Complexity, Biodynamics, and Nanopharmacology, 2002, pp.68-69 -- I hope that we can put some of these insights into the article. DanaUllman^Talk 17:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Mpemba effect

I am unsure that the examples of ice or magnetic tape gives the right impression. However there is an example of memory of water that may be relevant; that is the Mpemba effect. Water 'remembers' that it has recently been hot and this makes it freeze faster than water that was recently only cold. There is plenty of VS for this and it is mentioned briefly at Water (molecule). On the surface (like other memory of water effects) this seems counter-intuitive and outrageously unlikely; How can hot water freeze faster than cold water, when hot water actually has to become cold before freezing? There are, in fact, some good and simple reasons why it can occur (I can provide if anyone is interested) but until these are pointed out and understood, then the very idea seems nonsense. This is a clear case where experiments have proved intuition very wrong. Martin Chaplin (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! I too prefer evidence to logic any day. DanaUllman^Talk 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on the Mpemba effect. I added it to See also but this was removed by another editor, apparently we are not allowed to discuss any sense of water having memory other than in the context of Benveniste's own research here. This is why I think this article should either be merged or renamed. Memory of water is too broad a concept to be restricted to one person's experiments. —Whig (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the article, which I had overlooked (as I had for the Mpemba effect being such a good a 'memory of water' effect up until I replied to Dana). I believe it should be mentioned on this page as it fits in so well with much of the current thinking on the memory of water concept (i.e. a phenomenon down to unexpected solute and time effects), but with extra strong proof. I would like to put it back within a paragraph explaining this association. Martin Chaplin (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a V & RS that deals with (and connects) the Mpemba effect and "memory of water" (in the same article), then you might have something that can be used. We would need something that is more than speculation, but some real research on the subject, since anyone can speculate and that wouldn't be considered very "reliable". -- Fyslee / talk 00:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Whig, there was previous consensus that the "memory of water" article is not just about the research on Benveniste. Heck, he didn't even coin the concept. This concept is way beyond one person...and it certainly seems that the Mpemba effect is one other body of evidence that supports the concept of memory of water. Why wouldn't it be a part of this article? DanaUllman^Talk 01:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fyslee, of course all the work on the Mpemba effect involves the memory of water. Water is 'remembering' whether it was hot or whether it was cold (in the recent past). There are many V & RS for this. None of them actually mention the phrase 'memory of water' but surely that bit is unimportant? Martin Chaplin (talk) 08:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No. It's as simple as that. Unless you follow up on Fyslee's hint about finding a quality source that mentions this "idea" (yes, quality, not a fringe publication) it won't be in the article. You are stretching the use of the word "remembering" to a point that simply boggles the mind. This is a phenomena that occurs only under certain circumstances and is explainable by actual science. Baegis (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Your point is absolutely key. I am only interested in explanations by actual science, and if I believed that this page was only for those phenomena that were not explainable then I would not be here; and if this is the consensus then I am off. To be absolutely clear, you are surely not suggesting that we may not have anything on this page that has a scientific explanation. Finally, I agree that the Mpemba (memory of water) phenomena occurs only under certain circumstances; these are when you compare the freezing point behaviour of hot and cold water (loads and loads of V and RS). Martin Chaplin (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Nyet no memory effect required to explain what is going on there. Well not unless you are going to argue that momentium is a memory effect.Geni 10:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

It is very important that editors check facts, especially where these are pointed out to them, see the references given in the Mpemba effect. The Mpemba effect has nothing to do with momentum. Is there a V and RS source that states this? Many (all?) state otherwise. The papers certainly describe this effect in terms of how the history of the water affect its properties, which of course, is its 'memory' of this history. Also, it is a phenomenon that seems specific to water. Martin Chaplin (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Err pretty much all the reasons given boil down to aspects of kentics and thus momentum. Are you trying to arge that momentium is memory?Geni 17:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No, momentum is not mentioned, nor is kinetics. What is mentioned are unexpected solute effects and their effect on supercooling. I think we are getting rather off topic here. Martin Chaplin (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

in the context of kentics yes. Basic physical chemistry.Geni 18:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Memory involves cognition and intelligence, while history and the effects of previous events and contacts don't. Let's stop stretching "memory" and redefining it. That's what makes the whole concept of "memory of water" so absurd, because water has neither cognition nor intelligence. -- Fyslee / talk 19:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, well in that case water does not have memory. Did Benveniste believe that water was conscious? —Whig (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My memory certainly involves cognition and intelligence (I continue to hope), but there are many other different dictionary definitions for 'memory' that do not include these, such as computer memory, memory effect and memory foam. Martin Chaplin (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and computer hard drives have memory in the hysteresis sense of the word. —Whig (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to add the Mpemba effect as a 'memory of water' effect on the Article page. So far, the debate has wandered but the phenomena of hot water freezing before cold is a really good example of this and is widely accepted as real (if very surprising). Pablo Debenedetti, a physicist at Princeton University and a specialist in phase transitions of water, is happy to believe Mpemba's account. "I do not see any reason to doubt observations showing that under some circumstances hot water can freeze faster than cold water," he says in Philip Balls article on PhysicsWeb. Certainly David Auerbach wrote about the memory effect in his article on the Mpemba effect in Am. J. Phys. 63 (1995) 88, by describing a 'mechanism bringing memory into the system, something which has been considered a prerequisite for the effect'. The fact that we have some explanations for it that the majority of scientists can believe is no reason to keep it off. Martin Chaplin (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, until you find a quality reliable source, ie a journal article in something with a high impact factor, claiming that the Mpemba effect is anything related to the memory of water, it would be pure Original Research on your part. The quote from Debenedetti comes no where close to relating the two concepts. No one here is denying that under certain circumstances that hot water will freeze faster than cold water. But you are absolutely stretching the word remembering to accommodate anything. If you are so sure that the two are related, I urge you to research it further and publish your findings in a high impact journal. Baegis (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we have an unresolved focus problem for this article - is it about all the weird stuff water does where not all of its properties are fully determined by the standard thermodynamic variables, or is it about the reported ability of water to take on and retain chemical properties of solutes? If the former, many of these phenomena seem already to have articles, though there are some nice results on shock vs. static pressure with varying degrees of hydrostatisity and some modeling of what exactly happens to the molecules when normal ice melts that might could use a home. If the latter, as I think should be the case, it should be made clear that we are talking about the reported results of Benveniste and similar, and the science and non-science bits of the article should be clearly articulated. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with Am. J. Phys.? It is a V & RS. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that the Mpemba Effect has anything to do with water memory. This is an obvious case of WP:SYNTH. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am wasting my time here. I cannot get any sensible responses. Martin Chaplin (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This article was mentioned above, but there was a typo in the citation, so here is a link: David Auerbach "Supercooling and the Mpemba effect: When hot water freezes quicker than cold" American Journal of Physics, 63 (1995) 882. Though I still think that we seem to be talking at cross purposes regarding the meaning of "memory" in this context, viz. whether it encompasses all history-dependent effects not covered by a few simple scalars or whether it refers specifically to water somehow absorbing the chemical properties of anything dissolved in it. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)