Talk:Memory of water: Difference between revisions
imported>Paul Wormer (→Disagreement: new section) |
imported>Dana Ullman (→Disagreement: Request for more specifics) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
I strongly disagree with this article. It relies very much on a website of Martin Chaplin, who has one purpose only in maintaining his site: "proving" that water has memory and hence that homeopathy has a scientific basis. In this article properties of water that lack ''any'' scientific foundation or observation are presented as facts. Calling this article ''misleading'' is an understatement. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | I strongly disagree with this article. It relies very much on a website of Martin Chaplin, who has one purpose only in maintaining his site: "proving" that water has memory and hence that homeopathy has a scientific basis. In this article properties of water that lack ''any'' scientific foundation or observation are presented as facts. Calling this article ''misleading'' is an understatement. --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
:In due respect, Martin Chaplin's site is devoted to water research, with only a relatively small section on homeopathy and the memory of water. Providing reference to several thousand articles (mostly from peer-review journals), I find that he maintains a healthy objective review of the literature. That said, perhaps you could provide more specifics to what you would change about this article. [[User:Dana Ullman|Dana Ullman]] 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:42, 12 November 2008
|
| Metadata here |
Scope of this article
I'm a little confused about the arguments that water memory is the basis for homeopathy, when the homeopathic "simillum" is not always prepared with water, but, according to the main article, with ethanol, quartz, or lactose
Section cut from Homeopathy
I cut the text below from Homeopathy where it was misplaced in the Regulation section. I'm placing it here for relevant incorporation here, if needed "There is scientific doubt about whether these doses can have any biological effect[1] [2] [3], although there are studies which show that there can be a biological effect."Gareth Leng 13:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Disagreement
I strongly disagree with this article. It relies very much on a website of Martin Chaplin, who has one purpose only in maintaining his site: "proving" that water has memory and hence that homeopathy has a scientific basis. In this article properties of water that lack any scientific foundation or observation are presented as facts. Calling this article misleading is an understatement. --Paul Wormer 09:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- In due respect, Martin Chaplin's site is devoted to water research, with only a relatively small section on homeopathy and the memory of water. Providing reference to several thousand articles (mostly from peer-review journals), I find that he maintains a healthy objective review of the literature. That said, perhaps you could provide more specifics to what you would change about this article. Dana Ullman 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- ↑ Eskinazi D (1999) Homeopathy re-revisited: Is homeopathy compatible With biomedical observations? Arch Intern Med 159:1981-7
- ↑ Homeopathy (the academic journal published by Elsevier) and its special issue on the “memory of water,” July 2007. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14754916)
- ↑ Mastrangelo D (2006) Hormesis, epitaxy, the structure of liquid water, and the science of homeopathy. Med Sci Monit 13:SR1-8 pmid 17179919