sean Posted March 8, 2011 i was really disappointed in the lack of peer-reviewed work being done around this, considering that the impact, were it true, would be revolutionary. the fact that emoto went straight to pop-new-age book publishing and touring mode before taking the time to release his methods and validate them is concerning. i'd like to see more information about these new follow up studies. Â sean Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
-O- Posted March 8, 2011 i was really disappointed in the lack of peer-reviewed work being done around this, considering that the impact, were it true, would be revolutionary. the fact that emoto went straight to pop-new-age book publishing and touring mode before taking the time to release his methods and validate them is concerning. i'd like to see more information about these new follow up studies.  sean   If I remember correctly, the perr review had difficulty in forming adequate crystals at all, like 1 in 500 might be worth looking at. So the consensus I believe had more to do with chance than consciousness. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Immortal4life Posted March 8, 2011 The research I cited in the OP, by Dean Radin, does apparently appear to support Dr. Emoto. Not sure if anyone else replicated the study, or how the triple blind studies went. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheSongsofDistantEarth Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) Emoto's work is crap science. It may or may not be real, but he has gone about it sloppily. It's drek. Edited March 10, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
