Theoretical physics uncovering potential mechanism for homeopathy?

Are you serious?

No, those don't support homeopathy.

1. Nothing to do with homeopathy.

2. Nothing to do with homeopathy.

You do realize vigorous shaking would destroy any dipole in the water, right?

3. That's not a paper. Did you bother to look? He also conveniently leaves out all the methods related to the production and use of his magic water. We have no way of knowing what his source is or if it is even comparable to water.

4. That's complete statistical noise. No trend at all. Their makers went down half the time. I take it you just read papers and not bother looking at the actual data?

You sources that show homeopathy works better than placebo are also nonsense. They are in garbage journals or the PMID you gave doesn't work.

Every pro-homeopathy paper I've ever seen had some glaring, usually hilarious, flaw.

Ex: a paper showing structures in homeopathic remedies that weren't present in water or ethanol

Hilariously bad flaw: They compared commercial remedies to ACS grade water and ethanol

When your science is crap, you really can't expect to be taken seriously.

I think its more that you have lost any sense of skepticism you ever had. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence you've present is crap to being with.

"I swear y'all have lost your sense of curiosity! There are more things on heaven and earth, dear Horatio."

Get in the sack!

No it's not true, you're reading BS not science. There is a reason this kind of nonsense isn't published in peer reviewed journals, it's because it's total nonsense. There's a $1M prize up for grabs for anyone who can tell the difference between two identical prepared samples, one homeopathic and the other not. It remains unclaimed. Now, with all this analysis, why do you think that is? Where are the Nobel prizes being handed out? This would be a major tear-down of physics and chemistry and there would be more prizes and fame+fortune than you could shake a stick at. That alone tells you it's a bag-of-nonsense.

That aside ... you drop this majic water onto sugar pills, let them evaporate, so how do these missing clusters survive that when there is no water left? You're talking nonsense and this wasn't a question.

Sigh....

Unfortunately you've started off from an incorrect belief (in this case, "homeopathy shows an effect beyond placebo") and of course any conclusion or hypothesis reached from a flawed belief is pretty much doomed. And no, there's no reason why homeopathy should be treated any differently to a drug trial, so drop the special pleading fallacy.

Your question could be compared to one reading "Theoretical genetics uncovering potential mechanism for the existence of unicorns". All very interesting I'm sure, but until a unicorn turns up then there's not much point trying to examine their DNA.

Edit: If you could provide even the slightest evidence for unicorns ( a photo, scat sample, piece of hair, etc) then people might take you seriously. Except you can't, so you remain an object of derision and embarrassment. I do love your confusion over what science actually is though, there's probably no better example of your scientific naivety than this post. I should take a screen shot for the next time you profess to be a 'science geek', lmao!

Ah, water cluster quackery. This isn't exactly new.

And no, Doctor T, it goes nowhere near to explaining homeopathy.

It's not just the fact homeopathy lacks a plausible mechanism; many drugs have an unexplained mechanism. The problem is the fact it's never worked beyond placebo in ANY properly designed trial.

lol...wait until Dave sees this.

Edit: Er...the fact it's not supported by science? The fact those clusters won't even last for a fraction of a second?

" The results that demonstrate changes to T-cell function? Or the discovery of the particles themselves??"

The results don't demonstrate that though.

I don't think you understand how science works, which is surprising considering you claim to come from a strong science background.

If you think this goes anywhere near to justifying homeopathy you are deluded.

Homeopathy has been tested, claiming homeopathy has never succeeded because it does not lend itself very well to RCTs is a special pleading fallacy, and that don't fly.

When something defies all known rules of science, it requires more than a handful of poorly done studies with shaky results to prove it's efficacy.

No. You are forgetting that like does not cure like, and there is no vital force to be stimulated by the magic memory. Your whole post is moot.

"There are more things on heaven and earth, dear Horatio." Argument from ignorance - does not mean homeopathy works.

NEXT...

Your "major player" in theoretical physics pitches his services on his website as a "medical intuitive".

Is that a punchline?

Edit: Yeah, I read the work, and his CV - and if I should ever need a prayer, I'll know I can send a request for one to him. It's totally appropriate to toss the value of someones past credentials once they go over the deep end. He offers degrees in "Mysticism" and "Medical Intuition" through his "Halos University" - to most reasonable people that's sufficient alarm.

That was one of dozens of problems I had with the journals, I just chose to start from the bottom up...

Edit II: First rule of research - I learned it in high school: ALWAYS consider your source.

More like "Theoretical Physicists Discovering Yet Another Position to which Homopathic Scamquacks will Desperately Contort Themselves".

Medical Doctors, believe that this fundamental water particle, (nanometer in size, polar-charged and solid at room temperatures) is a key to the understanding of many of the body’s inherent healing properties.

1) where is the question?

2) are you so desperate to believe in homeopathy that you will find little non peer reviewed homeopathic articles that agree with you and you will show that as proof that it exists?

sad