An interesting web link discussing the speculative memory of water
theory of Homeopathy can be found here:

http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/homeop.html

Regarding the famous experiments which I have identified in earlier
postings as a possible key to establishing theoretical validity for
Homeopathic mechanism of actions, the author of this web page,
Martin Chaplin, had THIS to say (at the web site, the numbered
references have links to the research citations):

"A controversial paper in Nature [132] containing data from several
laboratories, claiming to prove the efficacy of extreme dilution (the
'memory of water' [1112])a has not been generally accepted after the
results were reported as not reproducible under closely controlled and
observed (by Nature's self-acknowledged biased observers), but
strained, overly-demanding and unsympathetic, conditions with negative
results from only one laboratory being cherry-picked from amongst
otherwise positive results [133]. The original results [132] were,
however, confirmed in a blinded study by the statistician Alfred Spira
[346e] and also in a rather bizarre Nature paper purporting to prove
the opposite [346b],b and were subsequently comprehensively confirmed
by a blinded multi-center trial [346a]. In spite of this apparent
confirmation by several laboratories, there are still doubts over
whether the experiments are truly reproducible and whether the noted
effects may be due to the origin of the biological samples or human
operator effects [1362]."

In a long series of previous postings interrupted as usual by skeptics
of this newsgroup, denial and/or misinterpretation of the above facts
was rampant.

We have here, for the first time, a succinct reference to the research
citations for all to see and follow.

In addition, a link is given to the criticism of the BBC "refutation"
of Ennis' experiments in which the following astonishingly frank
admission is made:

->from Dana Ullman MPH web site at:
http://www.homeopathic.com/articles/view,59

"WAYNE TURNBULL:

"The degranulation protocol that we use was never portrayed as a
replication of Dr Ennis's methodology."

"If this experiment was not a replication of Dr. Ennis' trial, then
whose trial was it? Who agreed to this trial that he conducted? No
one!"

Examples such as this expose the non-thinking
of the skeptic quackers who, apparently, regard Turnbull's  non-
repetition as the definitive refutation of
Ennis' positive results because it got (surprise!) negative results.
And THIS pathetic pap is offered in all seriousness by the skeptics as
the "science" that they use to attack alternative medicine.

Unable to accept real physical data in Acupuncture research and going
through all sorts of contortions to avoid accepting independent
confirmation of Ennis'
Homeopathy mechanism indicative famous experiment, the skeptics have
turned themselves into far worse than the quacks they see under their
bed.

Citizen Jimserac