Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of Chemist Marc Henry

General scientific debates. Presentations of new technologies (not directly related to renewable energies or biofuels or other themes developed in other sub-sectors) forums).
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4695
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 415

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by Exnihiloest » 10/01/22, 18:56

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... More and more crazy, more and more stupid. That said, without dogmatism.

We can do without your daily health bulletin.
0 x

User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11409
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 2939

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 10/01/22, 19:35

We know your variations of "it is the one who says who is", go back to watch the replay "of the numbers and the letters" ...
0 x
Apologize for all the wrong you've done! Apologize here right away — especially to Christophe — and try not to do it again. It's not a “gag”. It's your only chance. If you wait too long you will pay a very, very high price later, a price you don't even suspect.
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4695
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 415

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by Exnihiloest » 10/01/22, 20:08

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... go back to watch the replay of "letters and numbers" ...

Your old schnock references say more about you than me.
0 x
User avatar
GuyGadeboisTheBack
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 11409
Registration: 10/12/20, 20:52
Location: 04
x 2939

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by GuyGadeboisTheBack » 10/01/22, 20:31

Exnihiloest wrote:
GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:... go back to watch the replay of "letters and numbers" ...

Your old schnock references say more about you than me.

Oh yeah, it must be two years since I watched TV, you dumb shit.
0 x
Apologize for all the wrong you've done! Apologize here right away — especially to Christophe — and try not to do it again. It's not a “gag”. It's your only chance. If you wait too long you will pay a very, very high price later, a price you don't even suspect.
pierrotb
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 8
Registration: 28/01/20, 22:47
x 2

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by pierrotb » 12/01/22, 10:56

Can you talk to each other with respect without swearing or probing what the other thinks? I unsubscribe from this forum.
1 x

Dolores
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 1
Registration: 07/03/22, 21:42

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by Dolores » 07/03/22, 21:55

Hello,

There's a vibe here :|

Just to say that it is possible to carry out interesting research, that it may be fruitful and innovative, and that the researcher (and even more the rest of the informed, here and there) draw hasty conclusions from it or use it to explore other levels of thought (non-scientific, poetic, philosophical, metaphysical, aesthetic, etc.).

It seems to me that Marc Henry proceeds as follows: he does research work on water and does not draw the conclusions you say about homeopathy. Far from it, and he says that his discoveries and theses do not make it possible to affirm anything whatsoever in this field. But... he will then explain how, starting from there, we could envisage possibilities... to be demonstrated. And in these possible possibilities, a computer uploading, homeo Montagnier type, etc. It disturbs, it annoys, but it is not problematic exposed in this way.

Otherwise I saw that, on a BFM interview, Pascal Charbonnel, vice-president of the College of General Medicine, indicates: (taken in https://menace-theoriste.fr/lhomeopathi ... -medias-1/)

The study referred to by MA Auquier is this one "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance characterization of traditional homeopathically manufactured copper (Cuprum metallicum) and plant (Gelsemium sempervirens) medicines and controls" published in the journal Homeopathy in 2017. The article does not address the question of the biological effects of homeopathic remediesbut is interested in another question, that of the possibility that high dilutions behave differently than just plain water. The study purports to show that these dilutions would cause a change in the structure of the water. It has since been cited 5 times in the scientific literature, only in journals centered around homeopathy. This context makes analysis difficult: the scientific community has not for the time being given credit to this work, and as such this study cannot nowadays be taken as proof of anything. We will have to wait for a replication of these results. before taking them seriously.

We are quite far from: he is a charlatan... we just have an absence of justification for the attempt at replication (and several competing hypotheses are possible).
0 x
User avatar
Exnihiloest
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4695
Registration: 21/04/15, 17:57
x 415

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by Exnihiloest » 07/03/22, 23:06

Dolores wrote:...
It seems to me that Marc Henry proceeds as follows: he does research work on water and does not draw the conclusions you say about homeopathy. Far from it, and he says that his discoveries and theses do not make it possible to affirm anything whatsoever in this field. But... he will then explain how, starting from there, we could envisage possibilities... to be demonstrated. And in these possible possibilities, a computer uploading, homeo Montagnier type, etc. It disturbs, it annoys, but it is not problematic exposed in this way.

...

We are quite far from: he is a charlatan... we just have an absence of justification for the attempt at replication (and several competing hypotheses are possible).

Yet quackery is indeed the method described.
Science is not research. Science is knowledge, and scientific knowledge is demonstrated as such only when a consensus is reached by independent teams. So as long as we do research, we don't pretend to have a definitive theory, we make hypotheses, we test them, we have them tested, and we reject them if the observations and measurements do not correspond to the predictions of the hypothetical theory.

The memory of water has been rigorously tested, and has never been demonstrated. On the other hand, there is evidence that there are different structures in which water molecules organize themselves, so that water is not as simple as it seems, and real scientific work on this subject.
0 x
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 24788
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 4179

Re: Non Dogmatic Opinion on the Work of the Chemist Marc Henry




by Obamot » 07/03/22, 23:20

Dolores wrote:Hello,

There's a vibe here :|

Just to say that it is possible to carry out interesting research, that it may be fruitful and innovative, and that the researcher (and even more the rest of the informed, here and there) draw hasty conclusions from it or use it to explore other levels of thought (non-scientific, poetic, philosophical, metaphysical, aesthetic, etc.).

It seems to me that he proceeds as follows: he does research work on water and does not draw the conclusions you say about homeopathy. Far from it, and he says that his discoveries and theses do not make it possible to affirm anything whatsoever in this field. But... he will then explain how, starting from there, we could envisage possibilities... to be demonstrated. And in these possible possibilities, a computer uploading, homeo Montagnier type, etc. It disturbs, it annoys, but it is not problematic exposed in this way.

Otherwise I saw that, on a BFM interview, Pascal Charbonnel, vice-president of the College of General Medicine, indicates: (taken in https://menace-theoriste.fr/lhomeopathi ... -medias-1/)

The study referred to by MA Auquier is this one "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance characterization of traditional homeopathically manufactured copper (Cuprum metallicum) and plant (Gelsemium sempervirens) medicines and controls" published in the journal Homeopathy in 2017. The article does not address the question of the biological effects of homeopathic remediesbut is interested in another question, that of the possibility that high dilutions behave differently than just plain water. The study purports to show that these dilutions would cause a change in the structure of the water. It has since been cited 5 times in the scientific literature, only in journals centered around homeopathy. This context makes analysis difficult: the scientific community has not for the time being given credit to this work, and as such this study cannot nowadays be taken as proof of anything. We will have to wait for a replication of these results. before taking them seriously.

We are quite far from: he is a charlatan... we just have an absence of justification for the attempt at replication (and several competing hypotheses are possible).
It's biochemistry mixed with quantum bioelectronics. Without going into these extremely advanced areas but using simple means, I will only tell you this: what he says is completely serious, I have definitively cured myself of a fairly serious illness (which can end in a chair rolling) by applying some of the principles that Professor Marc Henry talks about in his debates and on the web.
(And I say it modestly, I know the research community because I also meet researchers, which puts me quite sheltered from non-rigorous approaches.)
0 x


 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Science and Technology"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 12 guests