This Is MS Multiple Sclerosis Knowledge & Support Community

I'm finding a lot of similarities to CCSVI in some articles I've been reading on "Water Memory" and CCSVI. In the comments section of skeptical blog posts there are a lot of parallels to the reactions to the skeptics here.

First, the article from the huffington post health section that got me going in the first place:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullm ... 14619.html


From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

--this one more so for the comments, but it's a funny idea---

http://thelinc.co.uk/2010/02/sceptics-t ... is-a-hoax/

I don't see the similarities. Do you mean there's similarity in just the debate between skeptics and supporters?

ikulo wrote:I don't see the similarities. Do you mean there's similarity in just the debate between skeptics and supporters?

Yes.

That was a wonderful article. "Water retains a memory . . . " -- absolutely beautiful and thought-provoking. Thank you so much for posting it.

concerned wrote:I'm finding a lot of similarities to CCSVI in some articles I've been reading on "Water Memory" and CCSVI. In the comments section of skeptical blog posts there are a lot of parallels to the reactions to the skeptics here.

First, the article from the huffington post health section that got me going in the first place:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullm ... 14619.html


From Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

--this one more so for the comments, but it's a funny idea---http://thelinc.co.uk/2010/02/sceptics-t ... is-a-hoax/

I found this quote relevant:

Another major logical fallacy used in this article is the argument from popularity­. The fact that homeopathy is the most popular alternativ­e remedy in Europe and that millions of people around the world use it doesn't give any evidence of whether or not it works.

People will believe a lot of things. It is human nature to try to understand­, often incorrectl­y, the world around us. People are often incapable of separating their experience from reality, failing to understand that correlatio­n does not imply causation. The scientific method and statistics were derived for The scientific method and statistics were derived for a reason, because people have an inherent ability to find patterns in completely random data

This is great:

Benveniste stated: "It's like agitating a car key in the river, going miles downstream, extracting a few drops of water, and then starting one's car with the water." [7] At the time, Benveniste offered no theoretical explanation for the effect.

I like this part better (from wiki):


While some studies, including Benveniste's, have reported such an effect, double-blind replications of the experiments involved have failed to reproduce the results, and the concept is not accepted by the scientific community.[5] Liquid water does not maintain ordered networks of molecules longer than a small fraction of a nanosecond.[6]

bluesky63 wrote:Benveniste stated: "It's like agitating a car key in the river, going miles downstream, extracting a few drops of water, and then starting one's car with the water." [7] At the time, Benveniste offered no theoretical explanation for the effect.

Me thinks he's been dipping into the d-lysergic diethylamide a bit too much.

NHE

Blah blah blah I am skeptic blah blah blah save the forum from the evil CCSVIers blah blah blah evidence based blah blah blah...

Yawn... Aren't you bored, yet? If you find a membrane, don't fix it. I wouldn't want to be your brain, though. I am lucky I am not.

I have been doing a lot of writing, and this is great for inspiration. (Maybe I should explain that this is what I find so amazing about all this material.)

NHE, have you seen that little youtube clip showing the 1950s woman undergoing an official government test of a certain colorless, odorless substance dissolved in dihydrogen monoxide?

NHE wrote:

bluesky63 wrote:Benveniste stated: "It's like agitating a car key in the river, going miles downstream, extracting a few drops of water, and then starting one's car with the water." [7] At the time, Benveniste offered no theoretical explanation for the effect.

Me thinks he's been dipping into the d-lysergic diethylamide a bit too much.

NHE

Maybe I should get into homeopathy then! Although, when diluting said substance, it's best to use a ratio of 1:3 (acid:water) and agitation is completely unnecessary!

sou wrote:Blah blah blah I am skeptic blah blah blah save the forum from the evil CCSVIers blah blah blah evidence based blah blah blah...

Yawn... Aren't you bored, yet? If you find a membrane, don't fix it. I wouldn't want to be your brain, though. I am lucky I am not.

Do you have anything to add to the discussion? Or are you happy just making personal attacks?

Are you saying you're glad you don't have a fully functional brain? It's not so bad, trust me.

Why we have to teleport disbelief
New Scientist, 12 January 2011
Magazine issue 2795
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... elief.html

DNA waves and water
L. Montagnier1,2, J. Aissa2, E. Del Giudice3, C. Lavallee2, A.
Tedeschi4, and G. Vitiello5

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/101 ... 5166v1.pdf

Reminds me a bit of the bee sting therapy theory...some passionate advocates who were anecdotally convinced it worked. In the end, no effect http://www.neurology.org/content/65/11/1764.short

Ccsvi has more complexity but it is interesting that as the evidence mounts that it does not cause ms, and exists in non-msers, advocates are still convinced of the need for treatment.

Perhaps the homeopathy example shows that at the end of the day no evidence will be strong enough to convince the proponents of ccsvi