Re: BBC: Could water really have a memory?

On Aug 4, 9:37 am, schu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Richard Schultz) wrote:
In article <098c5390-7a5a-49de-8616-63697b669...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, CitizenJimserac<Jimse...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:> Even granting Rey's competence, you should be aware that not every
:> "experienced chemist" knows what the impurity levels in typical solvents
:> are and to what extent they might affect a reaction (particularly a
:> catalytic one).

: OK, fine.  Good point, no objections.

Does this mean that you are going to stop relying on the "Rey is a
distinguished chemist [sic] and therefore must be correct" argument?
Does this mean that you are going to stop relying on the "No competent
chemist would fail to take impurities in the water into account" argument?

Let me save you the trouble: no to both questions.

Correct!! Wow the Doc is sharp today!!


: And they seem like good objections   If you are correct
: then my idea of chemists appears to be far more idealized
: as compared to reality -  something of a surprise to me.

Does this mean that you are going to withdraw your claim that I have never
presented any refutations of the papers that you have cited, or that you
are going to stop citing Rey?

Let me save you the trouble: no.

Er... actually on that one I'm not so sure - you've got some
interesting
objections there.

:> :> You may have given some kind of explanation of how your "water memory"
:> :> hypothesis can survive the paper that appeared in _Nature_ in 2005
:> :> (vol. 343, p. 199) that showed that liquied water loses memory of
:> :> long-range structural correlations within about 50 fs. ?But if you did,
:> :> I don't remember having seen it. ?Perhaps you could post a reference to
:> :> your explanation so that I can refresh my memory.

: And YOU are ignoring Roy's paper which addresses that issue,
: specifically mentioning exactly that high speed of bond formation and
: breaking but then positing cluster molecular structures which retain
: permanence or "memory" since NOT ALL THE BONDS which compose these
: structures are breaking at the same time.

That is irrelevant to the Nature paper, which showed that the bond-breaking
is fast enough and complete enough that all memory is destroyed in 50 fs.
Not all bonds have to break at the same time for that to happen.

Excuse please but they DO. Asynchronicity is specifically mentioned
in Roy's paper
if my aging memory serves me right.


: Roy goes on to assert something to the
: effect that the inability to perform electron microsocopy on liquids
: (correct me if wrong Doc) is what has held back the theory of water
: structure, as opposed to crystallline theory which has made far greater
: advances thanks to X- ray crystallography.

There are plenty of other techniques for observing the structure of
liquid water, some of which were used in the Nature paper.

: Side note to Doc:  Could you please tell us if there are currently
: scientific instrumentation which will now or soon be able to allow
: viewing water at the molecular level?

Yes.

: Such a device would put this whole question to rest, one way or the
: other, in a hurry.

Such a device can, and has, in the paper that I reference.

:> : I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE NATURE ARTICLE

:> In that case, you admit that your entire hypothesis must be wrong.

: I admit that it MIGHT BE WRONG Doc.

If you are in agreement with the Nature article, then your hypothesis
*must* be wrong, since the results obtained in that study directly
contradict your hypothesis.  Since you haven't read the paper and
don't understand your hypothesis, it's hardly surprising that you fail
to see that.

I don't have any hypothesis - I'm just trying to figure out how
SOME science is better than others.

Experiments get repeated successfully but then get reported in BBC
documentaries as having failed and just to prove it, they do
"REPEAT" (sic) except that the "REPEAT" changes the protocol which
they do not admits for months afterward until the "documentary" has
been shown to hundreds of thousands of people".
Then they privately admit that it was never stated to be a repetition
of Ennis
and that it really proved nothing while on their official website they
continue to advertise it as a refutation.

Does not look like good science to me doc.

In fact, it looks like it was necessary for the BBC to LIE about some
things
in order to make a key experiment relevant to Homeopathy look bad.

Surely, DOC you don't condone this?

:> Dr. Rustum Roy *was* a distinguished materials scientist; he is currently
:> a distinguished lunatic (and I say that based on letters that he has
:> written to C&E News that have nothing to do with homeopathy). ?His field
:> of expertise, by the way, has nothing to do with the structure of liquids.

: Ooooooo  Noooooo!!!!!!  He actually wrote some stuff
: that had NOTHING to do with Homeoapthy.

And which proves that however distinguished he once was, he has lost it.
The point (which as usual you completely failed to grasp) was that you
can't accuse me of basing my opinion of Roy on any antipathy to homeopathy,
since I held that opinion before I even knew that he had written anything
relevant to homeopathy.

Ya and Einstein in his later years thought he was some kind of
philosopher and could make major contributions to world peace.
Ludicrous, but by no means had he "lost" it.

: Could you cite some letters that shows us exactly why
: you think a distinguished scientist is a "lunatic".

A *formerly* distinguished scientist.  

You might start with the article on his web sitehttp://www.rustumroy.com/Scans/300%20Zygon.pdf.

There's a C&E News Letter to the editor from August 15th, 2005, in which
he revealed at the very least his ignorance of how modern medicine works
when he wrote

: I am appalled at the widespread misuse of the term "evidence-based medicine"
: by physicians. Where would chemistry be if AgCl formed from AgNO3 and NaCl,
: but only 60 to 75% of the time?

Well Doc, I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the
"evidence based" medicine thingy has a LOT of critics, scientific
though it may seem.
For one thing, they make a big deal out of the fact that the mechanism
of the Homeopathic drugs is unknown (if they work at all - I believe
that they do).
Yet, hundreds of drugs are routinely prescribed in standard medicine
every day
and the mechanism of action is NOT fully understood or known.
See Doc, that's called a DOUBLE STANDARD.

Still not convinced? I didn't think so.... HERE, read THIS link
with some good critical comments about "evidence" based medicine:

From laughingmysocksoff's comments at:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/socking-hypocrisy-in-anti-cam-campaign/

Socking hypocrisy in anti-CAM campaign

"Evidence-based medicine is a worthy objective. According to the
Oxford-based Centre for Evidence Based Medicine, “Evidence-based
medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current
best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual
patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating
individual clinical expertise with the best available external
clinical evidence from systematic research.”"

"The present campaign against homeopathy and other complementary
therapies makes extensive use of these aims to justify calls for these
therapies’ exclusion from the NHS on the grounds that there is “no
evidence” for their efficacy. I’ve gone into the evidence question in
relation to homeopathy in other posts. This one looks at the evidence
base for biomedical treatment. After all, if biomedical treatment is
to be so clearly preferred over the complementary therapies which
presently lack the robust evidence base being demanded, then one would
assume that biomedical treatments have a clear advantage here."

"One would assume wrongly."

Remainder of Laughingmysocksoff's comments on "Evidence" (sic)
based medicine can be seen at:
http://laughingmysocksoff.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/socking-hypocrisy-in-anti-cam-campaign/



:> [Benveniste] got much more of a fair hearing than he deserved.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7505286.stmhttp://www.randi.org/joom/commentary/swift/swift-july-31-2008.html#i2

Ah hah? Randi again, eh....

OK, doc, you go ahead and read up on "evidence" based medicine again
and later I'll invite you to rethink your criticism of Dr. Roy -
meanwhile I'll catch up
on my science reading and check out the swift boat... er, I mean swift
Randi commentary.

I realize, what with your never having debugged a computer program
other than at the amateur level, your analytical and skeptical
thinking capabilities, have atrophied
and you are apparently easily swayed by innuendo - stick with me, I'll
get you straightened out!

Citizen Jimserac


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Is sea salt better for your health than table salt?
    ... There is no reason to believe homeopathy works. ... There is no credible evidence it does work. ... demonise conventional medicine. ... "the treatment of disease by conventional means, ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: Can somebody tell steelclaws ...
    ... alternative medicine is useless are futile. ... Real evidence, and not some unhinged woo you generally provide. ... Carole believes that her laxatives will keep her safe. ... read my posts for a few examples. ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Lie back and relax: reflexology and aromatherapy degrees are dropped
    ... clinical evidence of efficacy, albeit controversial, remain in any ... By providing homeopathy on the NHS and allowing MHRA ... an efficacious system of medicine. ... House of Commons report into the Evidence Check on Homeopathy ...
    (misc.health.alternative)
  • Re: Regulating acupuncturists etc
    ... procdure is part of an anti-alternative medicine campaign ... It seems reasonable to me that medicine should be based on evidence, ... Why do you think an MD who evaluates the effectiveness of homeopathy ... We depend on the skill of GPs to diagnose, treat and refer, and on ...
    (uk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Is sea salt better for your health than table salt?
    ... if it were justly applicable today the claim that it doesn't cure is ... There is no reason to believe homeopathy works. ... There is no credible evidence it does work. ... demonise conventional medicine. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)