• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jacques Benveniste, dead?

walthrup48

Unregistered
W
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
1,087
"Jacques Benveniste, who gave the world the 'memory of water', died in Paris on 3 October. He will certainly be remembered for the phrase his work inspired, which has become the title of a play and a rock song, as well as a figure of everyday speech." Article

From: Anomalist.com

Can anyone confirm?

Edit: Jacques Benveniste est mort
 
It says he was 69 - I hadn't realised he was as old as that. Comes of watching the old footage filmed in the late 1980s.

It also says he died following a surgical operation. I wonder what was wrong? Obviously something homoeopathy couldn't cope with....

Rolfe.
 
While we're on the subject, does anybody know the truth of how he got into the memory of water in the first place?

He said on Horizon that a technician came to him shouting about this weird effect and he said no, it cannot be. Which got me wondering what the technician was doing diluting and succussing to 30C in the first place. Somewhere else he said it was a chance occurrence to do with laboratory glassware washing techniques. Well, the Korsakov method of diluting homoeopathic preparations is certainly just the same as is used in every laboratory (and every kitchen) to wash glassware. Tip out contents. Fill with water. Shake a bit. Tip out contents.... I just have trouble believing that anyone would do that 30 times.

However, if there really was anything in this nonsense, every laboratory and probably most cooks would have noticed something long ago. And isn't it funny that while it's easy to get it right by accident, when it doesn't work that's because the technique is so demanding that you just aren't doing it right?

I realised this when I heard a homoeopath damning the (failed) experiment shown on Horizon. That didn't use the Korsakov method, it used the classical multiple dilutions, but if I remember correctly (yes I do have the tape somewhere) they did the obvious and used immunology ELISA-type wells and automatic pipettes. So if it was an accidental Korsakov dilution in a washing process that started it all, at some stage the protocol must have been changed to the multiple dilutions method.

Anyway, the immunology method uses the same (plastic) pipette tip, with several wash-outs between dilution stages. It's standard. The outraged homoeopath demanded to know how could anyone ever have expected that to work, as obviously you need a new clean glass pipette and container for each dilution step. (I can see why grafting might be popular, if the classical method produces so much waste....) Funny, if it actually works, as clearly it has been claimed to work using that method (by Madeleine Ennis, for one), then nobody seems to complain. But if the original "discovery" was accidental, and the process requires such demanding methodology, then how is this possible?

However, I also heard that Benveniste was being funded by Boiron, the homoeopathic manufacturer. What I don't know is whether this was funding he acquired later after the implications of his claims became clear, or whether they were funding him from the start. If so, that would certainly explain why someone in the lab was doing 30C dilutons, perhaps even by a classical technique (bottle-washing accidental discovery my eye). If it was really a chance discovery, then I for one find the chain if events and inferences very difficult to follow.

Anybody know the truth?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
While we're on the subject, does anybody know the truth of how he got into the memory of water in the first place?
Click to expand...

It sounds very much like the usual Paranormal Fantastic Explanation. They come out, when they realize that the skeptics have shown that their original explanations don't hold...(dare I say it?)...water. Then, they increase complexity by inventing even more far-fetched explanations. Ha, disprove that, skeptics!

Remember the explanations about Mrs. Piper? At first, she was channelling this Phinuit spirit. But when the "researchers" discovered that this couldn't be the case, they did not draw the logical conclusion: That she was inventing things. No, they came up with the explanation that Piper first went into a trance, where she created this "artificial personality" (Phinuit), which then telepathically was in contact with the spirits.

We have the GCP's "Eggs", too. There is nothing that even indicates that computers are subject to human thought (if they were, we would not have functional computers at all), yet they construct a dongle that spits out random numbers, plug them in the back of computers all over the world and sit back and try to make the data fit the "Global Events".

Or what about moxibustion. Right now, there's an experiment going on in Denmark (with government subsidized money!) that aims to turn the fetus correctly in a pregnant woman's womb by - hold on to your potatoes - holding the ember of an herb-cigar close to the woman's toe, in order to massage it reflexologically.

Astrologers do it, too. When basic questions leave them flustered, they don't admit defeat. No, they merely point to much more complex (so complex they can't explain them) explanations.

It isn't "Divide and Conquer", it is "Complicate and Confuse". If it sounds impressive, it must be true.
 
It might be possible to get closer to the facts on this one if we knew something about the funding. If Benveniste was funded by Boiron from the get-go, then all is explained. Quite typical really, let's do some complicated flaky experiments that might show some fluky effect, but if they don't never mind because nowhere in homoeopathic doctrine does it claim that 30C IgE will degranulate basophils. Show we can reliably detect proving effects? Which of course we insist we can, with the greatest of ease? Well, no, maybe not because it would be awfully embarrassing if we really couldn't.

I simply can't figure any reasonable way for the thing to have been stumbled on by accident. And if in some weird way they were accidentally doing Korsakov dilutions inadvertently and noticed a surprising effect, why would they switch to a different protocol to investigate it?

Who was paying for Benveniste's research when this surprising accident happened?

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
I simply can't figure any reasonable way for the thing to have been stumbled on by accident.
Click to expand...

If it isn't stumbled on by accident, then it must have happened this way:

Hahnemann discovers that it has to be shaken, not stirred, a specific number of times.

10 up-down, 10 sideways, 10 in-out. Or something to that effect.

Not 8, 3, 6. Not 4, 29, 27.

How in heck could this possibly be tested empirically? We need 20 people for each experiment, to get statistical significance (to be extremely generous!).

Shake 1, 1, 1. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 2. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 3. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 4. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 5. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 6. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 7. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 8. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 9. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 1, 10. Doesn't work with 20 people.

(sigh)

Shake 1, 2, 1. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 2. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 3. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 4. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 5. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 6. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 7. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 8. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 9. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 2, 10. Doesn't work with 20 people.

(sigh)

Shake 1, 3, 1. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 2. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 3. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 4. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 5. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 6. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 7. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 8. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 9. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 1, 3, 10. Doesn't work with 20 people.

(a lot of sighs)

Shake 10, 10, 1. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 2. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 3. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 4. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 5. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 6. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 7. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 8. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 9. Doesn't work with 20 people.
Shake 10, 10, 10. BINGO! Works with 20 people!

See the problem?

And this is after Hahnemann realized that it doesn't work shaking in 1 direction, or even 2. It has to be 3, and then in a specific order. And after this, he had to determine that after 10, it doesn't work either.

The amount of testing is immense. I want to see those studies. Think I can?
 
CFLarsen said:
Hahnemann discovers that it has to be shaken, not stirred, a specific number of times.

10 up-down, 10 sideways, 10 in-out. Or something to that effect.

Not 8, 3, 6. Not 4, 29, 27. ....

And this is after Hahnemann realized that it doesn't work shaking in 1 direction, or even 2. It has to be 3, and then in a specific order. And after this, he had to determine that after 10, it doesn't work either.

The amount of testing is immense. I want to see those studies. Think I can?
Click to expand...
It was only two shakes, old boy.
A long experience and multiplied observations upon the sick lead me within the last few years to prefer giving only two shakes to medicinal liquids, whereas I formerly used to give ten.
Click to expand...
That must have been some clinical trial!

So, only two shakes. So how come a lot of modern homoeopathic pharmacies use electric vortex mixers? They're pretty fierce. And if any of what the homoeopaths say about magnetic fields is true, then shouldn't the mixer nix all the "energies" anyway? Or are you really going to tell me there's no magnet involved in how a vortex mixer works?

I'd still like to know more about Benveniste's route into all this. Pity we won't be able to ask him now. :(

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
It was only two shakes, old boy.
Click to expand...

Two shakes?? (Who are you calling old??)

My deteriorated brain sends signals that it is 10, in 3 dimensions. I can't locate the specific synapses at the moment, but I will look it up. Or create a false memory (and how will you counter that, you SKEPTIC?!?!?)

In the meantime, where do you get the 2 shakes from?

Rolfe said:
So how come a lot of modern homoeopathic pharmacies use electric vortex mixers?
Click to expand...

Are those the ones with the magnetic thingie that rotates like crazy at the bottom of the glass? I always thought they should apply that technology to martini mixers...
 
So, farewell then,
Jacques Benveniste,
Famous diluter of water.
I've often
Wondered how
Diluted water tastes.
Now I'll never
Get the chance
To find out.

E.J.Thribb aged 12 & 3/4
 
A long experience and multiplied observations upon the sick lead me within the last few years to prefer giving only two shakes to medicinal liquids, whereas I formerly used to give ten.
Click to expand...
Sometimes I just don't understand. Why on earth would he think that all ingredients would require the same amount of shaking? Does he think it's magic or something?

~~ Paul
 
CFLarsen said:
In the meantime, where do you get the 2 shakes from?
Click to expand...
Oliver Wendell Holmes
CFLarsen said:
Are those the ones with the magnetic thingie that rotates like crazy at the bottom of the glass? I always thought they should apply that technology to martini mixers...
Click to expand...
No, them's magnetic stirrers. Vortex mixers have a rubber sort of cup thing which vibrates, and when you touch the test-tube to the cup it sets up a fairly fierce vortex in the contents.

Quite good for mixing Tippex bottles as well.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Oliver Wendell Holmes
Click to expand...

"A long experience and multiplied observations upon the sick lead me within the last few years to prefer giving only two shakes to medicinal liquids, whereas I formerly used to give ten."
Click to expand...

That's where I got it from. Well, it does cut back on the time, but not on the number of tests...
 
CFLarsen said:
That's where I got it from. Well, it does cut back on the time, but not on the number of tests...
Click to expand...

And presumably he had to have come up with the ten shakes in the first place, then through later trails realised that 2 shakes were at least as effective as 10? I think this just compounds the number of trials he must have ran.

I mean he must have done controlled trials… mustn’t he? I mean he can’t have just made it up or guessed… ;)
 
Darat said:
And presumably he had to have come up with the ten shakes in the first place, then through later trails realised that 2 shakes were at least as effective as 10? I think this just compounds the number of trials he must have ran.

I mean he must have done controlled trials… mustn’t he? I mean he can’t have just made it up or guessed… ;)
Click to expand...

Good point: Why did he go back to 2 shakes? He started at 10? Did he record his results? Or did he merely muck about?
 
Hmmm, first John Mack, now this...

Its a skepticonspiracy!!!!!

Our evil death squads are now officially out of control!

Flee!
 
kookbreaker said:
Hmmm, first John Mack, now this...

Its a skepticonspiracy!!!!!

Our evil death squads are now officially out of control!

Flee!
Click to expand...

What about Stephen Jay Gould? Isaac Asimov?

"skepticonspiracy"....good one!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom