i agree with george the article has a significant bias just because two or three editors that do nothing but patrol this page and make hundreds of posts does not mean that your interpretation of the scientific consensus' interpretation by the editors here is the same for those of you in academia you can read this peer reviewed study for free here shows initial data that something remains in water long after all material is gone no matter what your thoughts unless you think the nobel prize winner is just lying this is pretty intriguing stuff he filters out all know bacteria even to th of the size and then takes the water and regrows the original bacteria with many types of bacteria he even notes that it must be succussed whether or not it has anything to do with homeopathy doesn't change the marvel of what this first look into this new type of data holds as it is very interesting i chuckle to see the anonymous layperson editors immediately discrediting nobel prize winners research because they must be a quack you are writing in wikipedia which means you probably don't have a real job in science or you would be doing that as opposed to sitting in the homeopathy page in wikipedia lastly brunton you are not consensus and in general i disagree with almost all of your points and your inability to process anything but your own biased viewpoint over and over you need to take a rest and let other people post we have all heard more than enough from you and we clearly understand your position a consensus is multiple editors and you have used all of your turns and then some take a break and stop trying to overpower this article just due to the fact that you are overtly biased and seem to have nothing else to do i would like to hear from multiple other editors preceding unsigned comment added by