"Тајната" на водата

Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
Како со вискозитет може да се објасни промена на структура при пуштање музика и слични надворешни дразби?
Очигледно некои тргнуваат секогаш со докажување според постоечките формули и тези и доколку не е можно со истите да се објасни, тогаш заклучуваат дека тоа не е можно или е фејк.
Пред илјада години како се докажувала молњата според авторот на коментарот?
 
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
Тоа е од еден аспект кој пак не објаснува зошто се групираат различно во зависност од третирањето на водата. Зошто структурата е правилна при правилно, добро третирање, а истата е неправилна при лошо третирање? Не бојаснува ниту структура на вода од водовод и природен извор. Инаку се е подложно на такви резонанци. Па и луѓето.
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
водата не знае што е добро а што лошо...инаку за лошите немаше да има вода!!!!

Water memory tests all wet:
A reassessment of the Benveniste experiments
by Howard J. Scrimgeour, D.V.M., 1988

An issue of Ontario Skeptic contained a letter from Paul Greenwood, ("Science is open to radical, new ideas") reporting on the "water memory" experiments of Dr. J. Benveniste, and offering the publication of these experiments as evidence of the willingness of the scientific community to examine new and unconventional ideas.
As most skeptics will realize, the claim that solutions can retain their effect when diluted many times, and indeed that the effect increases with dilution, is one of the fundamental tenets of the fringe medicine of homeopathy, but runs contrary to current knowledge in chemistry and biology. The results of this experiment, if validated, would therefore have lent credence to the claims of homeopaths.
However, additional information has come to light which forces us to reassess this research and its publication.
The initial report appeared in the June 30, 1988 issue of the British journal Nature, Vol. 333. Its results were sufficiently unusual that the editor of Nature began that issue with an editorial titled, "When to believe the unbelievable". It is worth quoting extensively from that editorial:
Inexplicable observations are not always signs of the supernatural. That is what readers of the remarkable article on page 816 should keep in mind. They should also remember that Avogadro's number, the number of molecules in a gram molecule of material is roughly UR1021, which naturally implies that most of the experiments with antibody solution reported by Professor Benveniste and his colleagues have been carried out in the literal absence of antibody molecules. For what the article shows is that it is possible to dilute an aqueous solution of an antibody virtually indefinitely without the solution losing its biological activity. Or rather, there is a surprising rhythmic fluctuation in the activity of the solution. At some dilutions, the activity falls off; on further dilution, it is restored.
There is no objective explanation of these observations. Nor is there much comfort for anybody in the explanation offered at the end of the article that antibody molecules once embodied in water leave their internal marks, as ghosts of a kind, on its molecular structure for there is no evidence of any other kind to suggest that such behaviour may be within the bounds of possibility....
Certainly there can be no justification, at this stage, for an attempt to use Benveniste's conclusions for the malign purposes to which they might be put. There are some obvious dangers. In homeopathic medicine, for example, which works on the principle that very small concentrations of appropriate products may have consequences that far outweigh those expected of them, there will be a natural inclination to welcome Benveniste's article as aid and comfort, but that would be premature, probably mistaken.
Nature also appended the following to the end of Benveniste's article:
Editorial Reservation:
Readers of this article may share the incredulity of the many referees who have commented on several versions of it during the past several months. The essence of the result is that an aqueous solution of an antibody retains its ability to evoke a biological response even when diluted to such an extent that there is a negligible chance of there being a single molecule in any sample. There is no physical basis for such an activity. With the kind collaboration of Professor Benveniste, Nature has therefore arranged for independent investigators to observe repetitions of the experiments. A report of this investigation will appear shortly.
Apparently, the editors of Nature were sufficiently uncomfortable with Benveniste's article that, after several revisions, they agreed to publish the article only if the researchers would permit their laboratory to be visited and their results investigated, by a team selected by Nature.
This team consisted of John Maddox, a journalist with a background in theoretical physics; Walter W. Stewart, a specialist in studies of errors and inconsistencies in the scientific literature and in the subject of misconduct in science, and James "The Amazing" Randi, whose name should be familiar to readers as a magician and skilled debunker of the paranormal and who was included on the team "in case the remarkable results reported had been produced by trickery". After their investigation, the team published their findings in the July 28 issue of Nature, Vol. 334. They found in essence that the results were wholly erroneous.
Erroneous results found
Before their findings can be properly understood, it is necessary to understand the design of the original experiment. In the bloodstream is a variety of types of white blood cell, which perform various functions. This experiment focused on a particular type known as a basophil, so named because it contains granules which are selectively stained by basic (alkaline) dyes. Basophils carry on their surface a type of antibody called IgE (Immunoglobulin type E). If this antibody binds to a foreign substance for which it is specific, it causes the basophil to release its granules, which contain histamine and a variety of other substances responsible for the clinical signs of allergic reactions. The same result can be elicited by exposing the basophils to an antibody which binds to IgE, referred to as antiIgE.
In their experiment, Benveniste's team began with a standard solution of anti IgE and repeatedly diluted it by 1:10. Each dilution was then added to a suspension of white cells, and the number of intact basophils was counted. (Basophils which have lost their granules do not pick up the specific stain and are therefore not readily distinguishable from certain other types of white cells.) This was done by placing a measured amount of the suspension in a counting chamber, a glass slide with a grid precisely etched on its surface, and counting the basophils under a microscope. The amount of degranulation was calculated by noting the difference in the number of basophils between test and control samples, expressed as a percentage.

Under the eyes of the investigative team, Denveniste's researchers repeated their experiment seven times: three times using their normal procedure, once "blind" (that is, reading the dilutions in random order without knowing which ones they were), and three strict "double blind" experiments, in which no one present knew which samples corresponded to which dilutions until after they had been read. The "normal" runs produced the results that had been reported in the original paper. The fourth run produced very high peaks even at high dilutions, an effect comparable to the undiluted original sample. The three double blind runs produced the result that conventional science would have expected: a high initial peak, which drops off to a minimum when diluted.

Experiments don't always "work"
The investigation team found the following flaws in the experiment:
1) The experiments do not always "work". There are periods during which high dilutions produce the negative results that current science would expect, and these periods last for up to several months. These negative results were not reported.
2) The experimenters are far from unbiased. Two of the coauthors of the article receive salaries under a contract with a supplier of homeopathic medicines. This alone, of course, does not invalidate the experiment; most researchers expect to get some particular result when they run an experiment. It does, however, explain why the researchers, even now, refuse to admit that their results have been refuted. The investigators stated in their report that "the climate of the laboratory is inimical to an objective evaluation of the exceptional data".
3) The peaks seen at high dilution, and described by Benveniste as "periodic" occur in fact at rather irregular intervals. Furthermore, Benveniste's notebooks showed that the peaks do not occur at the same dilutions on successive runs. This alone suggests that the results reported are a random phenomenon, and not the positive result claimed.
4) There is a problem in experimental procedures of this type called "sampling error". In essence, when a sample of blood is placed in the counting chamber, and the number of basophils is counted, the result will not be the same each time, but will vary randomly to either side of the true proportion. The branch of mathematics known as statistics provides formulas for calculating how much variation of this type can be expected for a given experimental setup. In the investigators' report. they state:
At INSERM 200 [Benveniste's lab], there seems to have gown up a less formal way of dealing with problems of this kind: When the reading of a diluted sample is greater than the control counts, the experimenter often counts the control sample again, on the grounds that the first reading "must have been wrong ...."
This procedure exaggerates to some extent the amount of basophil degranulation measured with reagents at high dilution. The practice makes the control values unreliable, and is a significant pointer to the laboratory's disregard of statistical principles.
To someone with no training in statistics, this procedure might seem reasonable, or unimportant. In fact, it alone is sufficient to invalidate the results. Recounting only those control values which are "too low" has the effect of artificially inflating the control values, and thereby creating a purely artifactual difference between the control and sample values.
The investigators summarized their findings by stating, "We conclude that there is no substantial basis for the claim that antiIgE at high dilution (by factors as great as 10120 retains its biological effectiveness, and that the hypothesis that water can be imprinted with the memory of past solutes is as unnecessary as it is fanciful."
Dr. Scrimgeour is a veterinarian with Agriculture Canada's Meat Hygiene Division and was a member of the executive of Ontario Skeptics when this article was written.
 
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
водата не знае што е добро а што лошо...инаку за лошите немаше да има вода!!!!
Има и за нив, но со расипана структура, лоша вода, неквалитетна. Како свежо и скапано јаболко-мацерација на јаболковите клетки.

А овие од Онтарио скептик и слични, ако почнеме со барања и постирања на туѓи заклучоци кои се водат од дневно-п. определби, никогаш нема да се докажеме. Факт е дека се научни експерименти во научни лаобратории од повеќе држави. Факт е дека реално не може да се објасни, сепак е ова мистерија која некои пробуваат да ја дисквалификуваат. Но факт е дека со постојано позитивни мисли кон некого ти му даваш голема сила. Досега е објаснувана со сила од мозокот, но што ако се должи на вакво нешто? Ние сме добар процент составени од вода. Еве сега прочитав, 60-70% вода сме. Па зошто делува на нас плима и осека?

Можда и научно ќе се докажат овие мистерии, треба да се почека и види. Скептици има многу.
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
да добар процент...

еве тука...имаш и за обиична резонанца и за ЕМ резонанца...значи звучникот вели те мразам те мразам(ист бран механички...а еви и со електромагнетни имаш)
The Current Theory: "structural matching"
The presently dominant QSAR (quantitative structure-activity relationship) theory of molecular signaling claims that two structurally matching molecular objects exchange specific information by mere contact. (Sometimes also refered to as the Key/Keyhole interaction model). Specific molecular interactions happen after random collisions between partners on a trial-and-error basis, using electrostatic, short range (two to three times the molecule size) forces. But this kind of random encounter, amidst the bulk of molecules which are foreign to a given biochemical reaction, would give to these meetings statistically little chance of occuring. Thus, the simplest biological event might require a very long time to happen. This paradox is still unexplained by those adhering to this theory...
The shortcomings of this approach are best illustrated by the now widely-recognized failure of "drugdesign" to produce the expected volumes of new therapeutic substances.
In this context, it is worth noting that the words "molecular signal" are routinely used by biologists, yet receive no precise physical definition.

The Proposed Theory: "electromagnetic signals"

Using various experimental protocols we are able to activate specific cell functions with the corresponding low frequency (<20kHz) electromagnetic waves. This prompted us to hypothesize that the molecular signal is composed of such low frequency waves and that the ligand coresonates with the receptor pretty much as the tuning of a radio device.
It is important to remark that these concepts do not violate any current biological or physical basic principle. It is well-documented that:

  • 1) molecules emit specific frequencies;

  • 2) a complex set of high frequency waves can produce low frequencies according to the "beat frequency" phenomenon,

  • 3) all biological interactions occur in water, since, on the average, there are ten thousand molecules of water per molecule of protein.
Quantum electrodynamics calls for the existence of long range electromagnetic fields that can be transmitted by large - hundreds of angstroms - coherent domains present in water (adapted from E. Del Giudice & E. Preparata, 1994, Journal of Biological Physics, vol. 20, p. 105). Such long range EM fields would be capable of transmitting the EM message coming from molecules, thus generating a long distance specific attraction between two molecules with matching spectra, excluding non-resonating, unwanted random events. The field resulting from the aggregation of the two coresonating molecules would obviously exhibit a different frequency which would then coresonate with the next molecule or cluster of molecules which intervene in the next step of the biochemical reaction, and so forth and so on... The fact that small changes in the spectrum of a molecule (e.g. induced by a tiny structural change) would profoundly alter its resonating characteristics, would explain how minute changes (e.g. phosphorylation, replacement of an ion by a similar one, switching of two peptides...) radically modify the molecular tertiary structure and function.



 
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
А што станува со објаснувањето за вода од водоводна цевка и вода од извор...па и другите појави во видеата?
 
Член од
24 ноември 2008
Мислења
1.035
Поени од реакции
44
Има и за нив, но со расипана структура, лоша вода, неквалитетна. Како свежо и скапано јаболко-мацерација на јаболковите клетки.

А овие од Онтарио скептик и слични, ако почнеме со барања и постирања на туѓи заклучоци кои се водат од дневно-п. определби, никогаш нема да се докажеме. Факт е дека се научни експерименти во научни лаобратории од повеќе држави. Факт е дека реално не може да се објасни, сепак е ова мистерија која некои пробуваат да ја дисквалификуваат. Но факт е дека со постојано позитивни мисли кон некого ти му даваш голема сила. Досега е објаснувана со сила од мозокот, но што ако се должи на вакво нешто? Ние сме добар процент составени од вода. Еве сега прочитав, 60-70% вода сме. Па зошто делува на нас плима и осека?

Можда и научно ќе се докажат овие мистерии, треба да се почека и види. Скептици има многу.
ААААААААААаа извини кој докажал дека на нас влијаат плимата и осеката?? тоест месечевите мени ? кој кога се знае дека влијанието тоес масата од која се ослободува проселен човек при , полна месечина се намалува колку штое тежината на еден комарец акои не и помалку, и несме 70% вода туку 85?% содржи вода човековото тело:toe:
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
космос(англиски)


лето



благодарам


мудрост(германски)


ти глупачо


мудрост(јапонски)


ѓавол(јапонски)


мудрост(јапонски)

Зборови на кои делува Водата
Еве го човекот Др.Мусаро Емото кој се занимава со истразувањето на водата-Watch this video on
а пази го ова:vozbud:

истата вода разликува и јазици:pos2:

па нели мудрост е мудрост....зошто различна реакција на ист збор(и значење(последната слика е на англиски не јапонски)!!!

или можеби различни механички бранови се нели различни јазици....нема водата емоции не е живо бике....

аплоадирав видео со експеримент сниман ете сега линкот уште малце............................. ......................ха еве го малку е 8мб

http://www.webfilehost.com/?mode=viewupload&id=6449811

и секако дека изворската вода е различна од таа од чешма де
 

Bacillus gagous

Biohazardous
Член од
21 јануари 2006
Мислења
7.380
Поени од реакции
168
И сега кој остана убеден дека треба да и збори на водата?
 
Член од
1 јули 2008
Мислења
165
Поени од реакции
19
Супер тема, една од најдобрите досеа на форумов.
П.С се прашувам како ќе реагира водата, кога би и пуштиле музика од Аца Лукас
 

аллександар

Вечно ненаспан
Член од
5 мај 2006
Мислења
7.381
Поени од реакции
2.522
јас немам многу што да кажам околу ова освен дека е интересно премногу... има некоја ствар изгледа што дефинитивно не ја знаеме околу водата. би додал само следново...

нострадамус сите свои предвидувања и визии кои ги имал ги гледал во вода
дрги јасновидци кои претскажувале работи и кои се исполнувале исто така ги гледале во вода
еден познат хемичар ( не ми текнува кој беше во моментот ) го кажал следново: ИГРАЈТЕ СИ СО СИТЕ ПЕРИОДНИ ЕЛЕМЕНТИ И СПУПСТАЦНИ, ПРАВЕТЕ ШТО КЕ ПРАВИТЕ САМО ВОДОРОДОТ НЕ ГО ЧЕПКАЈТЕ ВБО НИКОЈ СЛУЧАЈ.

ако има некој да се надоврзе на ова нека повели.
 
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
и секако дека изворската вода е различна од таа од чешма де
Зошто, тоа е прашањето, инаку сите знаеме дека е поздрава.

Ајде и ја да преземам нешто од интернет.
The highest excellence is like (that of) water. The excellence of water appears in its benefiting all things, and in its occupying, without striving (to the contrary), the low place which all men dislike. Hence (its way) is near to (that of) the Tao" and "There is nothing in the world more soft and weak than water, and yet for attacking things that are firm and strong there is nothing that can take precedence of it;--for there is nothing (so effectual) for which it can be changed.
Empty your mind, be formless. Shapeless, like water. If you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle and it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now, water can flow or it can crash. Be water my friend.
Еве за потсетување од првата страна
Dipl. Inž. Ivo Košak kaže: “Molekule vode, pored ulaženja u složene molekularne asocijacije (cluster), mogu oscilirati u devet slobodnih pravaca. To znači da jedna jedina molekula vode može zauzeti 9! Ili jednu od 362880 binarnih informacija! S jednim tucetom molekula vode, moguće je, prema tome, dobiti broj informacija koje bi trebalo ispisati na tridesetak tisuća stranica A4 formata. Danas još nitko ne zna što predstavlja samo jedna jedina scena u igri vodene memorije. A taj je scenarij još zamršeniji ako oscilacije ne shvatimo kao monotono, jednofazno njihanje, nego kao Fourierov niz….”.
И сега кој остана убеден дека треба да и збори на водата?
Јас ја пијам, некој и збори, муабет со вода... стварно е чудно некој да седне и да и запее пред да се напие :)
 
R

RAYTHEON23

Гостин
првите два цитата се ТАО мешаат религија...мики1 ке ти одговори

инаку клустер е збир на галаксии...а во хемијата на молекули(а овие од атоми).

има дури теории дека со овој начин може да се прави restore point за здравјето...демек претходно на јако инфицирано место немало бактерии па водата ке ги среди...како?????


ако има меморија треба да биде најверодостојна за историја географија па да почнеме да ја дешифрираме.

и кои се тие слободни 9 правци...зошто 9?????

и не може под НИКОЈ ОСНОВ да БИДАТ БИНАРНИ(1 и 0) ова се исти молекули....:toe:
 
Член од
28 март 2006
Мислења
17.805
Поени од реакции
12.295
ААААААААААаа извини кој докажал дека на нас влијаат плимата и осеката?? тоест месечевите мени ? кој кога се знае дека влијанието тоес масата од која се ослободува проселен човек при , полна месечина се намалува колку штое тежината на еден комарец акои не и помалку, и несме 70% вода туку 85?% содржи вода човековото тело:toe:
Абе не знам колку не сме поврзани со природата (тоа го читав со комарецот), инаку кога се менува времето болат зглобови, кога се менува надворешниот (атмосферскиот) притисок, се менува и крвниот притисок...ваљда има и за ова некое објаснување.

85%? Како бостан сме, саде вода.

RAYTHEON23, ова подолу е од Мартин Чаплин кој е

Professor of Applied Science
Water and Aqueous Systems Research
Head of the Food Research Centre
London South Bank University
Borough Road
London SE1 0AA
UK

Инаку за подсмев на овие експерименти и фасцинации со водата најдов сајт каде ги исмеваат лицата кои се појавуваат во филмот демек сиромашни руси и научници на кои им требаат пари па се продале...мислам поле за зае*анции има, но читај ги и другите написи.

Maybe I should have thrown the data away" but being a scientist and believing in his data he could not (Jacques Benveniste, 1935-2004)

Does water have memory?
The ‘memory of water’ is a popular phrase that is mostly associated with homeopathy and Jacques Benveniste following his and others’ allergy research work. These research teams reported that solutes subjected to sequential physical processing and dilution show biological effects different from those apparent using just the water employed for the dilutions. The subject has drawn a lot of controversy with many scientists simply rejecting it outright without studying the evidence. The subject area has recently been the subject of a number of papers in the journal Homeopathy (July, 2007) and has been reviewed. Although there is much support for water showing properties that depend on its prior processing (that is, water having a memory effect), the experimental evidence indicates that such changes are due primarily to solute and surface changes occurring during this processing. The experimentally corroborated memory phenomena cannot be taken as supporting the basic tenets of homeopathy although they can explain some effects​
меин евиденс, но дали краткото времетраење на ефектот што сакаат да го постигнат во Швајцарија во ЦЕРН ќе им даде за право експериментот да го осудат? Тешко, многу милијарди и многу подмачкани професорски глави се во прашање.
Is water special?

The main evidence against water having a memory is that of the very short (~ps) lifetime of hydrogen bonds between the water molecules. Clearly in the absence of other materials or surfaces (see later), the specific hydrogen bonding pattern surrounding a solute does not persist when the solute is removed any more than would a cluster around any specified water molecule, or else water would not know which of its myriad past solutes took preference. Indeed the atoms that make up the water molecule only remain together for about a millisecond in liquid water due to proton exchange (see water ionization). A recent NMR study shows no stable (>1 ms, >5 μM) water clusters are found in homeopathic preparations. It should, however, be noted that the lifetime of hydrogen bonds does not control the lifetime of clusters in the same way that a sea wave may cross an ocean, remaining as a wave and with dependence on its history, but with its molecular content continuously changing. Also, the equilibrium concentration of any clusters are governed by thermodynamics not kinetics.
As applied to homeopathy, the 'memory of water' concept should also be extended to the memory of aqueous ethanol preparations, which are also used. Addition of ethanol to water adds an important further area of complexity. Ethanol forms solutions in water that are far from ideal and very slow to equilibrate. Although usually considered a single phase, such solutions may contain several distinct phases and more generally consist of a complex mixture dominated by water-water and ethanol-ethanol clusters, where hydrogen bonding is longer-lived than in water alone. They also favor nanobubble (that is, nanocavity) formation. Thus, the peculiar behavior of aqueous solutions (as mostly discussed on this page) is accentuated by the presence of ethanol.
Продолжува

кого не го мрзи да чита (пошто гледам доста од доказите на некои теми се даваат на овој начин или ми велат -читај, па еве читајте :)

Solutions are more complex than expected

Water is not just H2O molecules. It contains a number of molecular species including ortho and para water molecules, water molecules with different isotopic compositions such as HDO and H218O, such water molecules as part of weakly-bound but partially-covalently linked molecular clusters containing one, two, three or four hydrogen bonds, and hydrogen ion and hydroxide ion species. Apart from such molecules there are always adventitious and self-created solutes in liquid water. Distilled and deionized water contain significant and varying quantities of contaminating ions. Often the criteria for ‘purity’ is the conductivity, but this will not show ionic contaminants at nanomolar, or even somewhat higher, concentrations due to the relatively high conductivity of the H+ and OH- ions naturally present. Other materials present will include previously dissolved solutes, dissolved gasses dependent on the laboratory atmosphere, gaseous nanobubbles , material dissolved or detached from the containing vessels, solid particles and aerosols (also dependent on the laboratory history) entering from the gas phase, and redox materials produced from water moleculesand other solutes produced on standing and homeopathic processing. Liquid water is clearly a very complex system even before the further complexity of molecular clusters, gas-liquid and solid-liquid surfaces, reactions between these materials, the consequences of physical and electromagnetic processing and the addition of ethanol are considered. Any or a combination of these factors may cause 'memory' of past solutes and processing in water. Some of these solutions are capable of causing non-specific clinical effects whereas others may cause effects specifically linked to the solution's (and laboratory) history, as outlined below.

There are numerous examples of the slow equilibration in aqueous solution. Thus, it can take several days for the effects of the addition of salts to water to finally stop oscillating and such solutions are still changing after several months showing a large-scale (~100 nm) domain structure. Also, water restructuring after infrared radiation persists for more than a day, and water photoluminescence changes over a period of days. Changes to the structure of water are reported to last for weeks following exposure to resonant RLC (resistance inductance capacitance) circuits . Conductivity oscillations (~ 0.5 Hz) at low concentrations of salts also show the poor tendency to equilibrium in such solutions. Succussion, by itself, has been shown to be 'remembered' for at least 10 minutes as solitons (that is, standing waves).

It has been found that clathrate hydrate nucleation is faster in solutions that once formed the clathrates but where it had been subsequently dissociated for periods up to several hours. Thus the solution shows a 'memory effect' of its previous history, although it is likely that this is due to retained super-saturated gas concentrations . Other interesting examples of the memory of water are the Mpemba effect and the observation that hot water pipes are more likely to burst than adjacent cold water pipes. In both effects, water seems to remember whether it has been recently hot or cold even when subsequently cooled. The Mpemba effect is a well proven phenomenon that also seems to be caused by unexpected solute and time effects and is described and explained elsewhere.

Explanation of homeopathy on the basis of water crystals is unconvincing as such crystals appear to be artifacts and, even as proposed, the effect of body fluid ions would be to immediately 'dissolve' them.

There is a strange occurrence, similar to the ‘memory of water’ but unconnected to it, in enzyme chemistry where an effectively non-existent material still has a major effect; enzymes prepared in buffers of known pH retain (remember) those specific pH-dependent kinetic properties even when the water is removed such that no hydrogen ions are present; these ions seemingly having an effect in their absence somewhat against common sense at the simplistic level.
Possible scenarios for the memory effect in homeopathic solutions

Various possible scenarios for the retained efficacy of homeopathic solutions are presented In the Table below.

Mechanisms for 'the memory of water' as applied to homeopathy
Specific clinical effects
Non-specific clinical effects
Remaining material on surfaces
Aerosol material reintroduced
Bacterial material introduced
Imprinted silicates
Remaining particle clusters Silicates, dissolved and particular
nanobubbles and their material surfaces
Redox molecules produced from water
Natural water clustering
Stabilized water clustering
Ions, including from glassware
Ethanol solution complexity
 

Kajgana Shop

На врв Bottom