Happy Water Crystals Debunked as PseudoScience

Are Dr. Masaru Emoto’s Fantastic Claims Actually Real?Emoto_web

Via is-masaru-emoto-for-real.com

When I first heard of Dr. Emoto’s amazing work with water crystals through his book “The Hidden Messages in Water” I was absolutely stunned. I then saw the movie “What the Bleep do we Know” and became thoroughly intrigued. I set off to conduct a research project in the chemistry department of Castleton College in Vermont to see if I could find sufficient evidence and support for Dr. Emoto’s claims to merit conducting a deeper research project to try to reproduce his work. The idea was to uncover as much information about his methods and procedures as possible to determine if is would actually be feasible to study the effect of energy healing, such as Reiki, on the formation of water crystals. I was so excited to think that I might be the first person in the world to verify his work!

So what follows is my official research paper that contains all of my findings and determinations after months of exhaustive review of Dr. Emoto’s published works. I hope that it will give you a deeper understanding and appreciation for the truth.

 Keep reading.

, , , , , , , ,

  • emperorreagan

    I saw a presentation of his stuff once. Heavy metal makes crystals that lack symmetry! Thinking about the devil makes ugly crystals! It was the same old hysteria dressed up with pictures of water crystals.

  • Ted Heistman

    This doesn’t mean reiki doesn’t work though…

    • Matt Staggs

      I know Reiki, and I can attest that she has an impeccable work ethic.

      • Ted Heistman

        uh oh….You didn’t meet up with RedBan at Comicon did you?!?

    • The Well Dressed Man

      Reiki works by the grace of Great Cthulhu. From his eight noodly appendages stream the numinous dread heebiejeebie waves.

      • Monkey See Monkey Do

        Um… actually Its heebiejeebie particles.

        • The Well Dressed Man

          If you don’t believe me, try it yourself! Strip down to a pair of spongebob squarepants underoos, fill the room with clove cigarette smoke, arrange the offerings of kimchi in ceremonial dishes and chant “Ia Cthulu, Halelujah Cthulu Fthaghan Molamekaholamekamolameka Hey!”

  • Jay

    I am a pretty rational, cynical guy, BUT the title of this article is MISLEADING.

    This is in no way a defence of Emoto’s claims, just a critique of the essay’s title/claim. The writer offered an opinion based on stuff he read. He did not debunk Jack shit. He did no experiments himself. He just read stuff.

    The title of this article should read:”Happy Water Crystals Claim Doubted by Scientific Community” – but that sounds pretty obvious and boring doesn’t it…

    This quote from the essay pretty much sums it up:
    “While it is possible that he did, in fact, discover that water has an observable sensitivity to external stimuli such as prayer and words, Dr. Emoto’s experimental design and clinical procedures do not prove the claim.”

    (from above essay) Someone else DID do some research and this is what he found:
    “As published on the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences on May 25, 2004, Mr. Nash states that the team “did not find sufficient evidence to refute or accept Emoto’s hypothesis that thought influences water crystal formation.”

    In my mind this is not at all debunked. I understand (and agree) with the writers angle and sentiment. Too many charlatans out there taking advantage of people. Still, give me some new evidence (or aggregated insight) if your are going to make such a bold statement. Cynics and rationalists should hold themselves to the highest standards IMO.

    • http://www.sacredgeometryinternational.com/ Camron Wiltshire

      Please post your comment at least 8 more times. Probably a Disqus error, or some odd new troll tactic the man has devised… j/k…or am I?!?!

      • Jay

        Um, consider going back too Troll school sir…

  • Jay

    I am a pretty rational, cynical guy, BUT the title of this article is MISLEADING.

    This is in no way a defence of Emoto’s claims, just a critique of the essay’s title/claim. The writer offered an opinion based on stuff he read. He did not debunk Jack. He did no experiments himself. He just read stuff.

    The title of this article should read:”Happy Water Crystals Claim Doubted by Scientific Community” – but that sounds pretty obvious and boring doesn’t it…

    This quote from the essay pretty much sums it up:

    “While it is possible that he did, in fact, discover that water has an observable sensitivity to external stimuli such as prayer and words, Dr. Emoto’s experimental design and clinical procedures do not prove the claim.”

    (from above essay) Someone else DID do some research and this is what he found:

    “As published on the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences on May 25, 2004, Mr. Nash states that the team “did not find sufficient evidence to refute or accept Emoto’s hypothesis that thought influences water crystal formation.”

    In my mind this is not at all debunked. I understand (and agree) with the writers angle and sentiment. Too many charlatans out there taking advantage of people. Still, give me some new evidence (or aggregated insight) if your are going to make such a bold statement. Cynics and rationalists should hold themselves to the highest standards IMO.

  • Jay

    This is in no way a defence of Emoto’s claims.
    The writer offered an opinion based on stuff he read. He did not debunk Jack. He did no experiments himself. He just read stuff.

    This quote from the essay pretty much sums it up:

    “While it is possible that he did, in fact, discover that water has an observable sensitivity to external stimuli such as prayer and words, Dr. Emoto’s experimental design and clinical procedures do not prove the claim.”

    (from above essay) Someone else DID do some research and this is what he found:

    “As published on the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences on May 25, 2004, Mr. Nash states that the team “did not find sufficient evidence to refute or accept Emoto’s hypothesis that thought influences water crystal formation.”

    In my mind this is not at all debunked. I understand (and agree) with the writers angle and sentiment. Too many charlatans out there taking advantage of people. Still, give me some new evidence (or aggregated insight) if your are going to make such a bold statement. Cynics and rationalists should hold themselves to the highest standards IMO.

  • Anwir Achzib

    Correct me if im wrong in the details of this but I say it is impossible to verify or debunk this by someone else unless someone does the experiment with Mr. Emoto himself while he does the experiment. His personal intentional power is a variable in this.

  • Jay

    This is in no way a defence of Emoto’s claims, just a critique of the essay’s title/claim. The writer offered an opinion based on stuff he read. He did not debunk Jack. He did no experiments himself. He just read stuff.

    The title of this article should read:”Happy Water Crystals Claim Doubted by Scientific Community” – but that sounds pretty obvious and boring doesn’t it…

    This quote from the essay pretty much sums it up:

    “While it is possible that he did, in fact, discover that water has an observable sensitivity to external stimuli such as prayer and words, Dr. Emoto’s experimental design and clinical procedures do not prove the claim.”

    (from above essay) Someone else DID do some research and this is what he found:

    “As published on the website of the Institute of Noetic Sciences on May 25, 2004, Mr. Nash states that the team “did not find sufficient evidence to refute or accept Emoto’s hypothesis that thought influences water crystal formation.”

    In my mind this is not at all debunked. I understand (and agree) with the writers angle and sentiment. Too many charlatans out there taking advantage of people. Still, give me some new evidence (or aggregated insight) if your are going to make such a bold statement. Cynics and rationalists should hold themselves to the highest standards IMO.

    • John Juster

      Charlatans are only of concern when money is in play. Presently, the scientific community is heavy dependent on money, and what comes with money are all the lowest of lives in action, profiting as we know, lest we forget, on all the rest. All of us and all of it.

      Profiting on all of us includes keeping us in the dark on lots and lots of playing fields. Keeping us psychologically evaluatable. (I don’t care if it’s not a word. It works.)

      This makes us realize we are not playing along, we are being played all along.

      Mix those nuts with a bunch of old “scientifiques”, all anti-religion / anti-creation, which means pro-science / pro-darwin. This makes such a mess one imagines in the brains of such “evolved animals”, treating one another as such.

      Of course, throw in anti-spiritual and anti-meditative (not “all” scientists, Einstein being a wonderful example). But when I realize that, simply speaking, the person asserting assumptions built on collective reasoning, to judge everything around them according to such thinking process, and every so often hailed amongst peers who toot the same tooting they’ve been tooted…..when they don’t yet realize the vested selfish interests in world-destroying agendas by the agencies, foundations and corporations funding their misleading research (ex.Rockefeller foundation!!WTF!!!), and they still insist they are right VS wrong, how you are perceived, of course, as a bit less evolved animal than them….. I say their pineal glands have calcified, and strongly suggest radically changing their diet, stop eating GMO foods, drink chaga tea daily, yerba matte instead of coffee, and to be joyful and say “hello, I love you” to the water they drink, bathe in, swim in, live in. You bet your brain cells it’s better than thinking the damn shit is just H2O. ;)

  • kowalityjesus

    It tries so hard to be the double-slit experiment, but doesn’t cut the mustard. Maybe one day there will prove to be something to this idea, but I will sooner look for it in a reputable publication not in the hubris of the internets, lol.

  • Bob Dabolina

    There is no evidence in the blog to disprove Dr. Emoto. other than to suggest “He didn’t do it the way I would have preferred him to so therefor it is false.” So check this out http://youtu.be/py4uzBDyV2U
    and feel free to replicate the experiment yourself. Or source the works of the individuals mentioned and go from there.

21