Homoeopathy - some sources please?!

"Benveniste concluded that the configuration of molecules in water was biologically active; a journalist coined the term water memory for this hypothesis."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ben…

"Homeopaths have adopted this "memory of water" nonsense in an attempt to recover from the disaster that arises whenever anyone who can think thinks about the ramifications of continuous dilution. In order to explain how something can continue to act even after all of its molecules have disappeared, it was necessary to invent the concept of "memory of water". Despite there being severe logical, philosophical and scientific reasons why any "memory of water" is a vacuous idea, and despite the fact that nobody has even come up with any even remotely feasible way of testing the concept, the homeopaths have simply willed it into existence. They then refer back to the weird way water molecules react with each other to say "see, some of these temporary structures could code for molecules that they have seen before".
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/ho…

From Mike Adams at Natural News:
"Granted, homeopathy is somewhat mysterious. It is curious in the way that it works through the use of subtle energies. Apparently, water has a memory, and there's a fantastic book on this called The Memory of Water that will show you in great detail, with colorful pictures, exactly how water is reshaped by different energetic and emotional vibrations."
http://www.naturalnews.com/001951.html

"Memory of Water"
http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-scientific-…

I'm curious as to what they DID tell you in your training and did you question it?

-------
EDIT: @Theresa, you are glossing over the fact that homeopaths and their supporters jump right onto any pseudoscience that supports the water has a memory concept - as I demonstrated. Furthermore, the homeopathy claim is that the body responds only to the physical information in the homeopathic medicine - since there is NO molecules of the original substances it can only be the memory of them, right?

--------
EDIT: @Theresa, I have never claimed it is taught as part of the curriculum – that’s not even the question.

Yes I CAN say that homeopathy cannot work. The same as I can say a car with no engine will not work. Your argument is fallacious; it is not logically possible to prove a negative. You are misrepresenting how science works, where the overwhelming consensus is that homeopathy does not work.

You must remember that in over 200 years and after many many trials, homeopathy has NEVER been substantiated to work for ANY condition. Systematic reviews are clear that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that homeopathy works for any single indication. You have NO plausibility - you don’t even have a coherent rational - you have NO empirical evidence of efficacy - all you have is logical fallacies.

It is not the skeptics of homeopathy who can be blamed for the emotional, irrational outpourings.

-------
EDIT: @Theresa - homeopaths have the burden of proof, not skeptics, not medical science. So what's the hard part? Does it work or doesn't it? Stop dancing around this problem - get your research done and present it for peer review.

Also, does water haver a memory?

-------
EDIT: @Theresa - Trying your patience...lol. “You state over and over again, that homeopathy doesn't work.” Yes, because homeopaths have FAILED over and over again to prove that it does work and they have FAILED over and over again to even present a plausible mechanism of action; thus I am sticking with the NULL HYPOTHESIS until it is disproved. The null hypothesis is that homeopathy doesn’t work. There is nothing dishonest about this; it’s called scientific method.

You are accusing me of being illogical – no. You are the one trying to trying to support something that has no plausibility or evidence of efficacy and committing a plethora of logical fallacies in doing so. For example: “since you (plural) are too emotionally involved to be honest” is an argument from ad hominem. I suggest you brush up on your logic.

You say “a group of people, lacking in training on a subject, and most certainly lacking in experience also, are never going to me my guides for a decision on my health” That is a CLOSED MINDED and irrational position; it’s FAITH based, and faith is NOT a pathway to the TRUTH. If a family member suffering from treatable cancer is told urine therapy alone would cure it, then skeptics warn that there is no plausibility and only anecdotal evidence to support that, do you ignore that warning because they have no urine therapy training or experience?

It astounds me that you guys have such a problem with consumer protection.

You studied homeopathy for four years and yet you don't have any idea about the water memory thing? It's supposedly the main mechanism of action for homeopathic remedies. You know, in medical school we study why drugs work. So in homeopathy school they don't study why or homeopathic remedies work?

The "water memory" thing is a relatively recent development (1988), promulgated by a French immunologist named Jacques Benveniste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memor…

That gets my GOAT!

Leanne,

It looks like Gary has given you the answer, although he has glossed over it. It comes from a journalist, not a homeopath. And that is likely why you weren't taught that concept.

This really is funny, because all this time the wannabe skeptics have been ranting about how ridiculous is the idea that "water has memory" which turns out to be a layman's understanding of homeopathy. Rather like their own understanding (sic) of homeopathy.

EDIT: Gary, the fact remains that it came from a journalist, and it was not taught as part of the curriculum. Science is always in evolution. Otherwise, it would be over. Once upon a time, scientists thought the atom was the smallest particle. And now we know that is not true. Ergo, you may claim that science has not found any technical evidence for the efficacy of homeopathy. You may not say that it cannot work.

It really is amazing to see so-called "scientists' on here repeatedly trying on the unscientific premise that because there is yet no evidence that it (various Alt Med therapies) does work, it must therefore not work. Until you can categorically prove that it does not work, you are drawing a scientifically illogical conclusion.

This then makes the rants regarding homeopathy emotional rather than rational outpourings. No true scientist would support any of the emotive, derogatory or vitriolic outpourings that abound in any question involving homeopathy.

EDIT: Dear Gary, you are sadly mistaken. It is an incontrovertible fact that you cannot prove that homeopathy does not work. Your car analogy is a misdirection, they are clearly not the same scientific comparisons - far too simplistic. And you only have a simplistic explanation for the numerous people who say that it does work (those who have used it and had favourable results). You will write it all off as placebo.

It's like saying we have proved the world is flat because that ship didn't come back. Ignoring the unknowns does not make a scientific conclusion.

I really don't know why you cannot just be honest and admit that scientifically, you cannot prove that homeopathy does not work. As science now stands, you cannot show that you have tested all possibilities, keeping all other variables constant. What percentage of studies in the medical field actually say that anything has been proven conclusively? It's not the same as a car engine which man has created from scratch. We do not yet understand everything about the human body, and we do not yet understand all of the miriad interractions therein.

And as for the key point of the question, it still wasn't a homeopath that coined the phrase "water has a memory". And my point was that it is not taught to homeopaths. So, it seems to me that you have singled out something that you can make look ridiculous, rather than take on the entire arena. It's not my argument that fails. And before you try to argue that again, go back and read my answer, more carefully this time.

EDIT: Gary, you really are trying my patience. You state over and over again, that homeopathy doesn't work - you and a long list of wannabe skeptics. A true skeptic could be honest and ADMIT that while mainstream science has no yet been able to reproduce clinical evidence of the efficacy of homeopathy, that he or she cannot say with 100% certainty that it does not work.

It's very simple, and since you are reasonably smart, but refuse to accept such a basic and incontrovertible fact, you expose your emotional, not rational, position regarding homeopathy.

Another point you fail to comprehend is that I haven't delved into the argument of whether homeopathy works or not, I'm just refuting the illogical postulations in your answer. However, a group of people, lacking in training on a subject, and most certainly lacking in experience also, are never going to me my guides for a decision on my health. Yes, I mean people like you. And it seems to me that the majority of people whom you attempt to "convert" to your way of thinking/existing are just as content as me to ignore the rantings of you and your ilk.

To put it simply, since you (plural) are too emotionally involved to be honest, and you do go way overboard in denigrating unnecessarily, we mostly ignore anything you have to say - you've alienated the audience, undermined your message. It astounds me that you guys still don't get it.

There is none in peer reviewed literature. I don't know if you have access to a library, if yo udo try searching for the peer reviewed AND confirmed experiments. There is zilch.

The first person who can tell the difference between water and a homoeopathic treatment produced the same way stands to win a cool $1M If this energy was detectable that is all it would take. Sorry you fell for a scam

Oh, never mind the $1M there would of course be the Nobel Prize waiting in physics, chemistry and medicine plus fame, fortune and glory all round. That would result in everyone tearing up the physics manuals and disappearing for few years while new ones are written based on the paradigm shift.

ETA

"To Nitram - your sarcasm and suppositions are counterproductive and exactly what I asked people not to do"

No it wasn't. There was no sarcasm and no supposition. It isn't my fault you fell for a scam and refuse to see the truth. Now I'll bet that way though. It's nothing more than a religion, spreading and supporting stuff for which there is not a jot of evidence. Really, if you thought the above was sarcastic you need to get out a bit more. It wasn't

"It really is amazing to see so-called "scientists' on here repeatedly trying on the unscientific premise that because there is yet no evidence that it (various Alt Med therapies) does work, it must therefore not work. Until you can categorically prove that it does not work, you are drawing a scientifically illogical conclusion."

So produce the evidence and get the Nobel Prize. It's waiting. you won't because you can't. It's not us to anyone to prove it doesn't work, science doesn't operate like that, it's up to you to prove it does. Just tell the difference between water and homeopathy. That is all you have to do to get a cool $1M. You don't even have to explain anything, just tell the difference.

People will always rant, for no one goes & asks those who have benefited from it with results measured by methods like ultrasounds & reduction in edema & improved blood pressure, treating cough that did not come back in 2 years after a 6 weeks treatment that cost less than $50.00.
Homeopathy has its own medical schools that teach only homeopathy & people have benefited greatly from it. That is where you should go to find more information.