Çevirmeye üşendim. İsteyenler wikipedia'dan Jacques Benveniste adını araştırıp, tamamını okuyabilir ama asıl yukarda aktarılan deneyle alakalı kısım aşağıda;

A week after publication of the article, Nature sent a team of three investigators to Benveniste's lab to attempt to replicate his results under controlled conditions. The team consisted of Nature editor and physicist Sir John Maddox, American scientific fraud investigator and chemist Walter Stewart, and skeptic and former magician James Randi.

The team pored over the laboratory’s records and oversaw seven attempts to replicate Benveniste’s study. Three of the first four attempts turned out somewhat favorable to Benveniste; however the Nature team was not satisfied with the rigor of the methodology. Benveniste invited them to design a double blind procedure, which they did, and conducted three more attempts. Before fully revealing the results, the team asked if there were any complaints about the procedure, but none were brought up. These stricter attempts turned out negative for Benveniste. In response to Benveniste’s refusal to withdraw his claims, the team published in the July 1988 edition of Nature the following critiques of Benveniste’s original study:

Benveniste’s experiments were "statistically ill-controlled", and the lab displayed unfamiliarity with the concept of sampling error. The method of taking control values was not reliable, and "no substantial effort has been made to exclude systematic error, including observer bias"
"interpretation has been clouded by the exclusion of measurements in conflict with the claim". In particular, blood that failed to degranulate was "recorded but not included in analyses prepared for publication". In addition, the experiment sometimes completely failed to work for "periods of several months".
There was insufficient "avoidance of contamination", and, to a large extent, "the source of blood for the experiments is not controlled".
The study had not disclosed that "the salaries of two of Dr Benveniste's coauthors of the published article are paid for under a contract between INSERM 200 and the French company Boiron et Cie."
"The phenomenon described is not reproducible". "We believe that experimental data have been uncritically assessed and their imperfections inadequately reported."

The July 1989 edition of Nature reported that INSERM placed Benveniste on probation following a routine evaluation of his lab. Although INSERM found that his laboratory activities overall were exemplary, it expressed severe discomfort with his high dilution studies, and criticized him for "an insufficiently critical analysis of the results he reported, the cavalier character of the interpretations he made of them, and the abusive use of his scientific authority vis-à-vis his informing of the public".[10]

Yani kısaca araştırma geçersiz, doktor Benveniste Fransız Medikal araştırmalar enstitüsü tarafından açığa alınmış..

Bu da japonla alakalı olan, ki kendisi bilim adamı değil zaten..

Even sympathetic commentators have criticized Emoto for insufficient experimental controls, and for not sharing enough details of his approach with the scientific community. In addition, Emoto has been criticized for designing his experiments in ways that leave them open to human error influencing his findings.

In the day-to-day work of his group, the creativity of the photographers rather than the rigor of the experiment is an explicit policy of Emoto. Emoto freely acknowledges that he is not a scientistö and that photographers are instructed to select the most pleasing photographs. Emoto says that he selects the photos that he wishes for consistency. This is an explicit admission of observer bias.

James Randi, founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation, has publicly offered Emoto one million dollars if his results can be reproduced in a double-blind study. Randi has also stated that he does not expect to ever have to pay the million dollars.