I agree that there were no peer-reviewed studies, but I distrust these critics, also. They are likely the same ones who criticize Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
Our emotions definitely affect our own health and the health of those interacting with us. This occurs by many physiological mechanisms, no doubt. Maybe water structure is one of them. Maybe not.
Correction: As an example of why I do not trust the opinion of mainstream scientists, I mentioned their opinions of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. I agree that these are not even in the same category with Dr Emoto's claims.
I wouldn't put this in even remotely in the same category as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because both of those drugs had a long history of use and ivermectin even won awards. They've been used for decades with very measurable results.
His claims on the other hand have none of that objectively true history.
It was also quite a bit of positive stuff about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine even after it was being attacked but that stuff was simply suppressed.
Basically I'm saying you're making an over generalization fallacy and a category error.
Yes. I was overgeneralizing, but not meaning to categorize them together. I just don't trust their opinion, so I chose another example of why they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. They are in no way equal examples. You are correct.
I agree that there were no peer-reviewed studies, but I distrust these critics, also. They are likely the same ones who criticize Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine.
Our emotions definitely affect our own health and the health of those interacting with us. This occurs by many physiological mechanisms, no doubt. Maybe water structure is one of them. Maybe not.
Correction: As an example of why I do not trust the opinion of mainstream scientists, I mentioned their opinions of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine. I agree that these are not even in the same category with Dr Emoto's claims.
I wouldn't put this in even remotely in the same category as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because both of those drugs had a long history of use and ivermectin even won awards. They've been used for decades with very measurable results.
His claims on the other hand have none of that objectively true history.
It was also quite a bit of positive stuff about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine even after it was being attacked but that stuff was simply suppressed.
Basically I'm saying you're making an over generalization fallacy and a category error.
Yes. I was overgeneralizing, but not meaning to categorize them together. I just don't trust their opinion, so I chose another example of why they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. They are in no way equal examples. You are correct.