Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 17 March 2008

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

	Timeline Tracer (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Timeline Tracer, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Timeline TracerWikipedia:WikiProject Timeline TracerTemplate:WikiProject Timeline TracerTimeline Tracer

Template:Archive box collapsible

Citation needed

The following introduction passage appears to contradict the main body of the article text.

However, while some double-blind studies, including Benveniste's, have claimed such an effect

Contrast with

However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in tinfoil, seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. Although everyone was confident that the outcome would be the same, reportedly including the Maddox-led team, the effect immediately disappeared.

Please reconcile these contrasting assertions with appropriate citation. Durova 00:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

When Maddox and his "Nature" team came to the French lab, the Nature team insisted that the first 3 studies NOT be blinded. Benveniste initially objected because they always did their experiments blinded, but he relented. The 4th experiment was blinded (the person reading the basophil counts) AND it had a positive outcome (this fact is commonly ignored), but if you read the experiment, it is clear that this happened. Then, during the next 3 experiments, the person who pipetted the placebo and the homeopathic dilutions AND the person reading the basophils wereboth blinded, and these 3 experiments had negative outcomes. It should be noted that it is very common for allergy and immunology experiments to have a high percentage of negative outcomes (this is why they do a large number of experiments). Ultimately, of the 4 blinded experiments, 1 had a positive outcome. For some reason, skeptics and the media have only focused on the last 3 blinded trials, not all 4. Is that more clear? Everything that I said above is a part of the Nature rebuttal to the initial Benveniste experiments. DanaUllman 23:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So, to distill all of that, the 2nd part which Durova noted is actually true. The experimenters were aware of which test tubes contained the antibodies and which did not. That is why people ignore the experiment that only had the basophil reader blinded, as it was not really a quality experiment. The trial with the positive response barely would pass as a blinded study. The first part probably stems from a misunderstanding of what a double-blind study entails. A failure to repeat the results on 3 actual double blinded tries indicates a problem. The whole water memory idea is rife with such claims of success on "double-blinded studies" but with no verification of said results upon further inquiry, ie Benveniste/Nature, Ennis/BBC. Baegis (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The original Dayenas et al 1988 paper in Nature states 'We can affirm that (1) this activity was established under stringent experimental conditions, such as blind double-coded procedures involving six laboratories from four countries'. I do not see that Maddox's view of one laboratory's procedure during a day or two of disrupted procedures should be sufficient to counter this clear statement. Argue about other factors but not this. The Tutor (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they couldn't replicate their studies while under the supervision of a third party is quite important to note. If you make a fantastic claim, but can't prove it consistently (and you throw away results?), someone has to ask, where's the beef? Baegis (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Baegis, you are on the money, it is important to note. But that has nothing to do with the claim concerning blinded trials. The Tutor (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Charges of attempted fraud and of poor lab practices

What about the evidence of fraud charges of attempted fraud and of poor lab practices in Benveniste's procedures that is reported in several V & RS, that should be mentioned in the article? Here's one more describing the role of Davenas and workers paid by Boiron. This ís only hinted at in the Jacques Benveniste article. -- Fyslee / talk 04:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no evidence of fraud; only evidence of poor laboratory practice. Randi 'found that the sealed flap of the envelope had detached itself at a surprisingly straight angle when the scotch tape attaching the code to the ceiling was pulled away, but inspection of the aluminium foil allowed him to pronounce himself satisfied that the code had not been read.' This is proof only of a suspicious mind. Maddox made no mention of fraud in his Nature paper. The Tutor (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct and I have refactored my comments and the heading accordingly. The poor lab practices are very damning for everything Benveniste was doing at the time, basically invalidating the research he had been doing, and the involvement of Boiron as a significantly involved party is also suspicious. -- Fyslee / talk 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead#3

The Lead is now a complete mess with much repetition. The Tutor (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Now improved but reference to dilution is repeated. Is that necessary? The Tutor (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit war attack

I have noted that a number of reversions of my edit have occurred recently by anonymous editors. The text is now completely misleading and shows no recognition of the information in the references referred to. Is this is what you want for WP? The Tutor (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC) It is clear that those responsible have not read the papers concerned as the reasons for reversions were false and they were not prepared to bring any counter-evidence here. Their plan was clearly to avoid the 3RR rule by force of numbers, if indeed there was more than one of them. The papers in question include many instances where the memory of water effects last for periods of at least weeks, but then I do not suppose that they are interested in facts just in the sport of 'Homeopathy (and all things related) bashing'. I consider their behavior bullying, pure and simple. The Tutor (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. Thank you. Baegis (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Does this has a place in the article? --Area69 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3817-icy-claim-that-water-has-memory.html

No, it doesn't really. While it's a secondary source and much better than the Physica A link someone was pushing on another page, the experiment in question is of too poor quality to be included. There were already two detractors in the article plus the study was not blinded. Even the famed Martin Chaplin said he thought that the analysis was off base and he has published other thoughts on water memory. Baegis (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Very few studies in chemistry or physics are blinded. so that comment is out of place. The Tutor (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If someone else, in the article, points it out, then blinding is an issue. Especially if you are trying to prove that water has memory. Baegis (talk) 22:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

And note who it was that was asking about blinding the study! Also I do not agree that such secondary sources are necessarily better than the primary paper, but perhaps you think it was much improved by the commentators expertise. The Tutor (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Secondary sources are nearly always better than a primary source. Primary sources are too open to interpretation by others and too close to the project/experiment/event at hand to critique objectively, especially in these areas. Baegis (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with The Tutor that it seems that editors have not read that special issue of the peer-review journal, HOMEOPATHY. This issue does present both experimental data and theoretical expositions on the memory of water issue (the research by Elia is of particular significance, and the "silica hypothesis" article provides a physicality to how homeopathic high potencies work...this is of interest to advocates and skeptics). Further, Rey's article was published was a highly RS journal, and the New Scientist article provides secondary source. As for the blinding issue, it is OR for someone to say that it is an "issue." We (editors) cannot make judgments one way or another. We have to rely upon where the study was published, and it was published in one of the most respected physics journals (end of story!). DanaUllman 13:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Dana, it was not published in "one of the most respected physics journals". Quite spreading these outright lies. I am getting fed up with you claiming that every single journal that has ever published an article that supports your views on homeopathy is somehow a highly respected journal and worthy of inclusion. Most of these journals exist in the middle of the pack or, more often than not, are at the very bottom of their field! Stop blowing smoke up our collective behinds regarding your opinion of these journals. Secondly, it is not OR for me to say blinding is an issue, especially considering Benveniste himself mentions it in the article. Even your normal go-to guy, Martin Chaplin, questions the results. Baegis (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this particular article or any other journals under discussion, the journal Physica A is well above WP:RS. "Respected" would not be a misnomer - probably it is shy of Physical Review or Journal of Physics, but by no means is it down in the unciteable doldrums. I would like to point out, however, that the Verifiability policy explicitly includes as criteria the work itself and its creator, not just the publisher. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stated my understanding above that the statement 'no firm conclusions as to any cause, or indeed any effects loosely termed "memory of water" that could persist for the time required for homeopathy' is not borne out by the literature. I added a well-founded reference to the page with the explanatory text 'Light scattering studies have shown that simple electrolytes and non-electrolytes, such as sodium chloride, glucose and ethanol, can form large-scale supramolecular structures over periods of up to a year.(Marián Sedlák, Large-Scale Supramolecular Structure in Solutions of Low Molar Mass Compounds and Mixtures of Liquids: II. Kinetics of the Formation and Long-Time Stability, J. Phys. Chem. B, 110 (2006)4339-4345)' to refute this but his has now been reverted by ScienceApologist. It is wrong to revert good science support for a view just because the opposite view is held and without any RS. Clearly a good V & RS that makes a case for simple aqueous solutions changing over a period of a year is of relevance to this point and balances the revert statement, referred to. The Tutor (talk) 14:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We can only continue to entertain the inclusions of the synthetic original research of Martin Chaplin for so long. Either publish your ideas in a mainstream journal or stop bothering us. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This reference describes a clear long-term memory of water effect in a mainstream V & RS. The Tutor (talk) 15:07, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Judging from the abstract, that J Chem Phys B has absolutely nothing to do with water memory, as the study dealt with actual solutions, containing actual solvents molecules. Yilloslime (t) 18:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not misrepresenting the paper. The memory of water clearly involves actual solutions containing actual solute molecules. This page is not about imaginary solutions. Also your reference link was not to the paper I gave. Here is the correct one. The Tutor (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I had the wrong abstract, thanks for correcting me. Still, my point stands: water memory is about "solutions" which don't contain any actual solutes, but instead contain a small amount of water molecules that were once in contact with an even smaller number of water molecules, which were once in contact with an yet smaller number of water molecules, etc....which were once in contact with some solute molecules. In contrast, the paper you cite is a study of solutions of water that contain solute molecules. Yilloslime (t) 19:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the reference to this paper as well: Ohmura R, Ogawa M, Yasuoka K, Mori YH (2003). "Statistical study of clathrate–hydrate nucleation in a water/hydrochlorofluorocarbon system: search for the nature of the ‘‘memory effect’’." J. Phys. Chem. B 107: 5289-5293.  That this paper has any bearing on water memory is, at best, WP:SYN. Furthermore, the samples in the described experiments are not claimed to be without dissolved solutes, and the time-scale for the clathrate "memory" effect appears to be much short than that required to explain "water memory" in the context of homeopathy. Yilloslime (t) 19:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a clear memory' effect, but in that case you must also remove the paragraph '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. This 'memory loss' was actually the loss of the OH stretching excitation of individual water molecules due to "relaxation channels and configurational-averaging mechanisms that are absent in other liquids".' At this rate there will be nothing left on this page and we can all go home. The Tutor (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You have hit one of the problems with this page and therefore a major problem for us editors. It has a split personality and does not know whether it is just to do with Benveniste or is it to discuss a wider range of rather strange phenomena of water (including the Benveniste stuff) whereby the history of a sample of water determines its properties (i.e. water memory). At the moment there is quite a lot of the more general stuff, which is where I hope to contribute this paper. The Tutor (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, "Water memory is a scientifically unsupported theory 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 the quantity being used is minuscule.". While I agree that "a wider range of rather strange phenomena of water" exist (e.g. Mpemba effect), only material materially related to whether or not "water is capable of retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it" should be included in this article. Thus, the work of the like of Benveniste, Ennis, and Rey is all fair game, as is work demonstrating the implausibility of the effect, e.g. the "Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O" paper. Papers discussing the behavior of water with dissolved solutes (sorry about the redundant language, sorry), or clathrates formation seem off topic unless the the papers themselves or reliable secondary sources argue that the have bearing on water memory. Yilloslime (t) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well that certainly gives the POV of the article. The Tutor (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC) In fact the very paper that indisputably proves that "water is capable of retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it" is the one you have just deleted because you made a POV on timescales. What timescale do you believe is important? And is there any V & RS to back it up? The Tutor (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What paper are you talking about? Yilloslime (t) 21:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohmura's. The Tutor (talk) 21:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That paper is about clathrates and makes no claim about solute-free systems remembering former solutes. I think the confusion is over Ohmura et al's use of the term "memory." They're not using it mean "memory" in the sense of "water...retaining a memory of particles once dissolved in it." Yilloslime (t) 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Clathrates are crystalline particles. They are using it in exactly that sense. The Tutor (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste my time explaining chemistry to you, but the paper is definitely not claiming that solute-free systems can remember former solutes. Yilloslime (t) 21:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I actually provisionally agree with The Tutor on the inclusion of the observation that clathrate hydrate microcrystals influence recrystallization time/temperature/host-guest structure. This is generally referred to in the literature as a "memory effect", and I do not know of anywhere better on WP for such a discussion. However, as this effect has no intersection with dilution and succussion or homeopathy, the article would need to be rewritten to reflect a revised focus. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is about a different kind of hypothetical "memory effect," one dealing the retention of information about or properties of solutes that have been diluted out of the final "solution" in question. Its a different beast than the clathrate memory effect, and to discuss them side by side in the same article will only muddle, rather than clarify, people's understanding of these distinct, and unrelated, though similarly named, concepts. If anything, this article needs a disclaimer warning people that the concept known as "water memory" that is invoked as a mechanistic explanation for homeopathy should not be confused with the phenomena known as "memory effects" sometimes observed in clathrate (re)crystallization. Yilloslime (t) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems a good way forward; there could be a number of similar phenomena excluded with the right phrasing. The Tutor (talk) 08:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, including clathrate hydrate formation "memory effect" would not only be way off base for this article in its present form, it would be irrelevant to any form. There is not really even necessarily enough linguistic similarity to justify even a disambiguation notice, and physically the reported observations are completely independent. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

textbooks

To drive home the point that water memory isn't real, would it be overkill or violate WP:OR to point out that no chemistry or physics textbooks mention it? Yilloslime (t) 04:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think its a very valid point, but it is more than likely bordering on OR. The article should make clear how "out there" this whole concept is. Baegis (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it borders on OR, but is also an easily falsifiable statement. Anyone should be able to debunk it by providing a source. -- Fyslee / talk 05:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's impossible to prove a negative, because there might be a textbook that does. There are textbooks that state Evolution is an unproven theory. I'll bet there's some chemistry textbook that states magical homeopathic potions work. So unless there is a reliable and verified source that says "I've looked at almost every textbook out there, and none mention water memory" it is absolutely OR. OrangeMarlin 07:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya, thats kinda what I figured....Yilloslime (t) 20:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

statistical significance

Under Water memory#More recent experiments there are (off and on) words describing statistical significance (e.g. "highly significant", "marginal"). Would it be possible for someone with access to the relevant papers to label these experiments with proper p values instead of less precise and potentially loaded adjectives? - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, I forgot to look at that article today (I have a copy at my office). Although my memory is that the p-value was 0.0001, though I may have put an extra "0" into it, but in ANY case, it is not "marginal" and it is "highly significant." My memory is that this p-value was in the "Oooooh my god" significant level. When I get this info substantiated, I will make the change and hope for your support in whatever I find. DanaUllman 05:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I think that fair and precise treatment of any article we decide to include is a point on which we both can agree. Either of those p values would support saying "highly significant", and I support reporting whatever value the authors obtained. There were actually three articles whose statistical significance I noticed being described (as I said - off and on since as of this writing only one of them is) without numeric validation - Belon (1999), Ennis (2001), and Belon (2004), currently references 14-16, respectively. If you happen to have any of the others, those would be great to include too. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 06:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have them all. The 1999 study had four labs reporting a total of 772 data points were evaluated testing various potencies of histamine (15, 16, 17, 18, 19), with a P value < 0.0001. The 2001 tested for inhibitation of CD63 expression after incubation with histamine at 2X, 4X, 6X, 14X, 18X, 20X, and 26X. P=0.005. The 2X, 4X, 26X doses had a P value of 0.01; the 20X dose had a P value of 0.001. It should be noted that heating of the potencies of 2X, 30X, and 36X caused a significant decreate in the inhibitory effects of these histamine dilutions on basophil activiation, with P=0.039, P=0.018, P=0.0064 respectively. The 2004 study was also a multi-center study (4 labs) that evaluated a total of 2,706 data points, testing potencies from 28X, 30X, 32X, 34X, and 36X, all of which had a P=0.001. It should be noted that 1 of the 4 laboratories didn't obtain significant results. Taken together, it would certainly seem that these results should be described as "highly significant." The additional evidence of the results inhibited by heat is of special interest, and several researchers have found this effect from heat and/or from certain electromagnetic fields (microwaves and even cell phones). If you have any additional questions, please just ask. I would prefer if you wrote this up since some editors tend to have an "allergy" to my contributions. DanaUllman 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose clarifying what is meant by the words "highly significant", "marginal", etc, in the article, but I would suggest that we leave the actual P-values out. Going into gory details about p-values is not WP is all about. Instead, instead of "highly significant" why don't we just say "highly statistically significant," wording which won't confuse or distract readers who don't know or care about statistics, but will clear imply to mathematically inclined readers that the p-values are pretty small. Yilloslime (t) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. By the way, I love collaboration. DanaUllman 00:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

DanaUllman, thank you for looking this up, it is appreciated. I quite understand your point about emphasizing that consensus has been reached, and will be happy to write this up as soon as the present discussion has been resolved. One more quick question - could you confirm for me that all of those values are given as p equals, not p less than? It might also be that the nice round numbers come from rounding, but sometimes significance is reported as a maximum (the results were of at least such-and-such significance).

Yilloslime, I really think that the p-values (or other measure of statistical significance) should be included in the article, along with some indication of effect size, especially for articles not freely available on the web. I can, however, see the point to not cluttering the article to the extent that it interferes with the flow of presentation (cannot see the forest for the trees).

This, as I see it, leaves us with three options: leave the plain language in the body and add the results of more detailed analysis to the footnotes; dramatically expand Water memory#More recent experiments to include both an overview and a detailed treatment and comparison of the relevant papers; or drop it all in a summary table of evidence. I am at the moment leaning towards the third option, as it is easy to ignore or peruse depending on level of interest and is easily extensible; besides, Misplaced Pages has some nice table functionality that I have not had a chance to play with yet. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 01:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In addition to my concerns about understandability and readability, I'm a little concerned about about WP:WEIGHT as well. By going into the statistical details of these papers, I fear we're giving them more WP:WEIGHT than they deserve. I still favor simply noting that these studies have yielded statistically significant or marginal results, over going into the details, either in prose or in a table. Yilloslime (t) 01:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Eldereft, first, to clarify the P value info: My understanding P values are that when there is the < (less than) sign, it means that the P value was rounded off to that value and that it was less than that. As such, it is reasonable, at the values listed above, to write them as = or <. I like your 3rd option too. It sounds more visually appealing and will provide useful detail for the reader. As for Yilloslime's comment, I am confused why he would say (or even suggest) that these values are somehow "marginal." I assume that if you are not going to put the P values, you would have to describe the research results as "highly significant." DanaUllman 18:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if my previous comment wasn't clear. I was not saying that the P-values quoted by Dana are marginal. I was referring to Eldereft's original question that started this thread, where s/he said "Under Water memory#More recent experiments there are (off and on) words describing statistical significance (e.g. "highly significant", "marginal")". Yilloslime (t) 18:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for that clarification Yilloslime. I'm glad that I AGF...and that you showed it back. Communication sometimes takes effort, but it is worth it. For further clarification, does anyone know at what level something becomes "highly significant"? Is it .01 or .001? DanaUllman 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Use of the journal Homeopathy

This journal looks to be a fringe publication. At the moment the article cites a number of articles from it in a paragraph in the "recent experiments" section. I think the amount of space given is undue weight given the this journals absence of scientific weight. I think the conclusion they report can be summarised in a much more concise manner, so as the report the beliefs of homeopaths on the subject. Jefffire (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is fringe, and we should be careful to not give it undue weight. However, the way it is currently being used in the article is fine, I think, because it is clearly identified as a journal that aims to promote homeopathy. Yilloslime (t) 20:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This particular issue of Homeopathy is written by a number of scientists from different backgrounds, including a sceptic and several who are not connected with the homeopathic community. It gives a good overview of current thoughts concerning the 'memory of water' phenomena. Leaving it out would certainly be ill-advised, if WP wishes to present an encyclopedia. One must also consider the difficulties involved in publishing in this area in other journals, the fact that it is a peer reviewed journal and the particular articles it contains. It is certainly not a fringe publication for this area of science. The Tutor (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jefffire and Yilloslime. It is only really a good source for the opinions of homeopaths. Anyone commenting here about this journal should declare a conflict of interest, if they have any. As examples, having contributed to issues in question or being the editor of the issue, &c, would count as a conflict of interest that should be declared.__91.121.64.135 (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic? You mean a skeptic of real science writes in a journal that promotes homeopathy? I'm not shocked, but that confirms to me it's a fringe publication. OrangeMarlin 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any call for it to be entirely excluded as a source, unless it's marginal in the world of homeopathy as well as science. Jefffire (talk) 22:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I wish to assume good faith, but I also have a sneaking suspicion that some (maybe many) of the above editors are neither subscribers or readers of this journal. This is a peer-review journal, and its editorial board includes an international group of physicians, scientists, professors, and even skeptics (Ernst, amongst others). This journal is not fringe. It may be consider "cutting edge" of medicine and pharmacology. DanaUllman 05:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

None of that make it mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Once again this skeptic word. I can't see how bragging about editors that are skeptical of science are going to convince individuals who prefer and accept scientific reasoning for medicine. OrangeMarlin 08:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The sceptics mentioned are sceptics of the 'homeopathy' area not sceptics of the science area. The Tutor (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

They may very well be, but adding "sceptics" to an editorial board does not automatically make a journal a respected and authoritative source. It takes many years of reputation building through impeccable standards. Jefffire (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Elia's Important Research

In the light of the important research published by Elia, I recommend that we significantly change the statement at present, "However, the concepts discussed in this issue are very different to those proposed by Benveniste, and the issue came to no firm conclusions as to any cause, or any effects loosely termed "memory of water" that could persist for the time required for homeopathy or for experiments like Benveniste's." I recommend that editors read his work at and at . Elia and his chemist colleagues have shown that the thermodynamics of water is changed when a substance is placed in double-distilled water and when that water undergoes the typical homeopathic pharmaceutical process of dilution and succussion (vigorous shaking). Further, using well-established physicochemical techniques: flux calorimetry, conductometry, pHmetry and galvanic cell electrodes potential, they have unexpectedly found that the physicochemical parameters evolve in time. Please note that Elia has published numerous studies in leading scientific journals and that he has summarized these various studies in the July 2007 article in Homeopathy (the journal published by Elsevier). DanaUllman 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having some of your papers published in "leading scientific journals" by no means gives credibility to everything you publish. Regardless, what are your actual proposed changes? I just see a redirect for us to read some dubious research. Plus, you need a subscription to access the first article. Baegis (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)